The Contrarian

An art historian interviewed on the radio this morning described himself as A Contrarian. He explained the process: whatever anyone postulates as a theory, he takes a directly opposite standpoint. Note that no insight or understanding precedes the standpoint. The standpoint is taken and then an argument is contrasted so as to oppose, to the maximum, the theory concerned.

Nothing new here then, except the confession. There was a time when people practiced Contrarianism but did recognise that it was bad practice and so hid the fact that they were doing it. Nevertheless, from at least Ancient Greek times when e.g. Demosthenes theorised that everything was made of atoms and the next guy came along and said “Oh no, it isn’t! Everything is continuous and undifferentiated.”, philosophers, scientists and their ilk have used contrariness as a means of manufacturing alternative theories. The art historians are merely using the methods already well honed by philosophers.

Philosophers have retreated from actually trying to answer any questions to a position of saying that it is not the answer that is important but the question. Indeed they have retreated even further, taking up the position that it is the practice of philosophical thinking that is important, not questions or answers…….sigh………I mean, what IS the point?!! If you adopt a method of thinking that gets you nowhere, would it not be sensible to question the value and effectiveness of that mode of thinking?

If you invented square wheels on the basis that everyone else’s wheels were round, but then found that your bike and car and cart would not actually move, would you not question the value of your invention? A sensible person would. People of our world do not.

Philosophy has failed. Its methods are wrong. I really can hardly believe that I am having to try and explain here why Contrarianism is wrong, but I know only too well that the responses I will get on this site will reveal that people do not understand why Contrarianism is wrong!!! Everyone who has experienced contrariness KNOWS that it is wrong, KNOWS that contrariness is used by people who want to make things as difficult as possible for somebody else. Note: it is NOT used to gain new insights or understanding; it IS used to create as much difficulty as possible for the targeted person.

It used to be the case that every mother or nanny knew that contrariness was wrong and would reprimand any child that showed this undesirable trait. The only reason philosophers of the past got away with it was because they disguised it so well. But now things have got so bad that disguise is no longer deemed necessary because people are no longer aware that contrariness is counter-productive.

So our art historian, in shamelessly, even proudly, proclaiming his Contrarianism, is displaying how very far humanity has fallen and his failure to learn from mistakes of philosophers.

 Dragon: what you are describing is the genesis of philosophy, where very literal views were entertained. The analogy to baby's is very fit, inasmuch as a baby would also think on a minimally symbolic level.  However, where has this correspondence led ?  Into the final analysis that naïve realism, or common sense should/will rule.  In the case of mom, it is her sense that rules, and it may very well be uncommon.  In that sense, naïve realism has diverged from mom's unique approach to child-bearing, in as much, as mom has increasingly deviated from the typical mom of just a few generations ago.

 In fact, if present trends continue,it may very well develop to a point where mom may encourage contrary behavior on part of her baby, out of fear of not being able to be anything but  another mom.

OP, you are wrong.

My only objection would be in who it is that you are accusing.
Society develops through processes. Once you understand the processes, it isn’t the chaotic mess that it seems. And then because the processes are identified, they are used. But who is doing the “using”?

All people behave in ways that can be criticized as at least, “not being the best behavior”. And within the forest, it is easy to believe that it is only the trees that cause the forest to be what it is, fore the trees is all that can be seen.

The trees aren’t the “real issues”, but rather the particular philosophies of those who pay the forest rangers.

There has always been only one highest order battle going on throughout the history of humanity, and explicated by all of the religions in their own manner (including Secular Scientism). And although it has been called “good vs evil”, that isn’t really what it has been.

It has been, just as this OP suggests, an issue of the usefulness of contrariness. The Persians, the Hindus, the Hebrews, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Greeks, the Christians, and the Secular Humanists have all recognized the battle and chosen their side.

There has always been only one issue, “Which side you support”.

That was Democritus.

And, yeah, you’re pretty much wrong about the rest too.

Such a mom would be a prime candidate for a Darwin Award — on behalf of herself AND her baby!

You need a check-up from the neck up. Things have become very erratic in your attic. Predictable or what? There’s always one!

I would agree with this, with one exception: my good self! But you make it sound natural, inevitable, harmless. It is none of these things. It is very harmful indeed and is what is driving humanity to an apocalyptic state.

Thank you for the correction. yes, I did not feel the name was sufficiently important to warrant my verifying that particular detail — the truth of the statement is in no way affected by the name. I am so happy that you put me right about the rest as well. Or perhaps, you too are a practicing Contrarian. You certainly do pull out well known ploys from the Debunker’s Manual as if you know it backwards.

As with many other things, one can have different motives for being a contrarian.

Sure, there are those who argue the opposite of something just for the sake of being provocative. They like to stir things up just to see other folks get all agitated.

But think of the contrarian mentality in high school and college debates. It’s as though it doesn’t really matter which side you take here. What counts instead is how skilled you are with the language rhetorically in being able to present either one side or the other in the most accomplished and effective manner.

Or the motivation might lie in exposing the fact that, with respect to some relationships, reasonable arguments CAN be made by either side. This tells us something about our capacity to demonstrate that either one side or the other must be right or wrong

Contrarianism may just be a backward glance toward the Dialogues, in order to bring out hidden truth.

The learning is over when everyone agrees.

When everyone agrees, there is nothing left to learn.
…and time to start using what you learned.

Using what you’ve learned? That I’d like to see. But even then only after they agree with you.

James…nothing left to learn? Kind of a stretch don’t ya think?

So when the brainwashing has been 100% successful, we can all go and start living!

What if one billion people all agree but one, maybe you or maybe me, does not? Does one go with the billion? — a billion people can’t be wrong, can they???

Hey, if you can get ME and also iambiguous to agree with a billion people, there can’t possibly be anything left to learn.

Well, LEARNING may not be wanting… but understanding?

Wanting, learning and understanding take time. That’s tomorrow. Today there’s nothing to understand.

At any present moment where there is justified contentment, where all your basics needs are met, the question, “is this all there is?” arises from an area in the mechanism of thought that is demanding that there is something more interesting or meaningful to pursue.

The question is, is this activity of boredom or restlessness part of your conscious existence? From where comes this demand to experience more knowledge and understanding? What happened to acceptance especially in areas of life that do not improve no matter how much understanding is acquired?

If anyone in this world today feels contentment, there’s something wrong with them.