The original meaning of anti-guest as host is: the guest becomes the host in turn. It is a metaphor for changing passivity into initiative. In argumentative debate, passivity is a common disadvantage on the field, and often a harbinger of defeat. The anti-guest in argumentation, in common parlance, he said, is to change passive into active in argumentation. Below, this article tries to combine the theory of technique with the analysis of the actual case, to introduce you to a few kinds of anti-passenger skills.
(A) borrowing power to fight
Wuxia novels have a trick, called "borrowing power to fight", that is to say that the deep internal strength of the people, you can borrow each other's attack on the other side of the counterattack. This method can also be applied to argumentation.
For example, in the debate on "Knowing is difficult, doing is easy", there is such a round:
Positive side: Yes! It is precisely because of the death of those who went to the execution ground that they realized the power of the law. The dignity of the law, can be said to "know difficult" which, the other side of the discerning friend! (Loud applause)
When the other side to "know the law is easy to abide by the law is difficult" the example of the argument in the knowledge of easy to do difficult "when the positive side immediately turned from:" knowledge of the law is not easy "to strengthen their own point of view to the other side to a powerful counterattack. The situation was reversed.
Here, the reason why the positive side can borrow the example of the negative side of the body, because he has a series of did not show in the verbal, reinterpretation of the theory of the word as a strong backing: the defense of the topic of the "know", not just "know" of "know". More should be built on the basis of human reason "know"; abide by the law is not difficult, as a process of behavior, killing is not difficult, but to know how to maintain human rationality, restraining the inner breeding out of the vicious desire to kill, but it is very difficult. In this way, the positive side of the broad, high definition of "knowledge is difficult" and "behavior is easy" by the negative side of the narrow, low definition of "knowledge is easy" and "behavior is difficult ... the power of the attack, effectively counterattacked the negative side, so that the negative side constructed in the "knowledge" and "behavior" surface of the shallow surface of the framework of the argument collapsed.
(ii) remove the flowers and wood
Cut out the other side of the argument there are flaws in the part, replaced with our side of the point of view or material, often can receive the "four two pounds" of the strange effect. We put this technique metaphorically named "flower and wood". For example. In the "difficult to know easy to do" debate has appeared in the following example:
Counterparty: the ancients said "Shu was difficult, difficult to get to the sky", is that the Shu Road is difficult to walk, "walk" is "line" Well! If it is not difficult to walk, why is Sun Xing Shi not called Sun Zhi Shi?
Positive side: Sun Da Sheng's nickname is Sun Xing Shi, but does the other side know that his legal name is Sun Wukong, and "Wuk" is not "Zhi"?
This is a very nice example of "picking up the pieces". The other side of the example seems to have a good point, in fact, some far-fetched: to "Sun walker why not Sun Zhi Zhi" as a refusal, although it is a kind of almost forceful initiative, but after all, in the momentum of the upper hand. The positive side keenly found the other side of the argument one-sided, decisively from the "Sun Wukong" side of the start to "realize" is "know" cross-examination of the other side, so that the other side put forward on the "Sun Da Sheng" citation as a paycheck to put out the fire, fire burns.
The technique of moving the flower to the wood in the theory of argumentation is a strong attack, it requires the debater to be brave to receive the move, the courage to counterattack, so it is also a difficult, confrontational and very high. Persuasive argumentation skills. Admittedly, the actual field on the eloquent, changing winds and clouds, not always have "Sun Xing Shi" "Sun Wukong" such ready-made material available, that is to say, more "flowers and wood". It is necessary for the debater to summarize or deduce the opponent's point of view and our position at the time.
For example, in the debate on "curing poverty is more important than curing stupidity", the positive side has such a statement: "...the other side of the debate to measure the importance of the urgency, then I would like to tell you, I am now very hungry, 100,000 urgent need for food to fill up, but I still have to argue, because I realize that the argument is more important than the hunger." The words were met with applause. At this time, the opposite side argued calmly: "The other side of the defense, I think 'have food not to eat' and 'have no food to eat' are two different things ......" The opposite side of the defense stirred up even more enthusiastic applause. The positive side of the "food not to eat" to argue that poverty is not enough to fear and the relative importance of curing stupidity, the negative side immediately from their own point of view to summarize the purpose of the "no food to eat", a clear comparison of the two nature of the world, effectively stifling the tendency of the other side of the concept of stealing.
(C) push the boat
On the surface agree with the other side of the point of view, follow the logic of the other side of the derivation, and in the derivation of our needs, set up some of the obstacles in line with the rationale, so that the other side of the point of view in the conditions set up by the establishment of the other side of the inability to be established, or to reach the opposite of the other side of the point of view of the conclusions.
For example, in the debate of "Should Yugong remove the mountain or should he move":
On the other hand: ...... we would like to ask the other side of the discernment, Yugong moved to solve the problem, to protect the resources, to save manpower,
financial resources, so what is wrong with this?
Positive side: The moving of the fool is a good way to solve the problem, but the place where the fool is located is even difficult to get out of the door, how can the family move? ...... can be seen, moving can be considered, but also have to be moved after the mountain moved ah!
Mythological stories are exaggerated to show their reasoning, the essence is not in itself but in the moral, so the positive side can not let the negative side of the detour on the matter, otherwise, the negative side of the modern value orientation of the "methodology" will prevail. From the above argument, the opposite side of the matter, the rationale is sufficient, solid foundation, the positive side of the first trend to affirm that "moving is not a good way to solve the problem", and then both people "Yugong is located in the place of even the door is difficult to go out" this condition, naturally derived from the "home and how to move" cross-examination, and finally the water to the channel, the conclusion that the "first move the mountain, and then move". Such a series of theories are interlocked. Sections through, in order to the overwhelming attack on the other side of the matter hit the water, can be said to be wonderful!
(D) the source
The so-called source, this paper takes its metaphorical meaning, is to point out that the other side of the argument and the topic of the correlation is not tight or run counter to the fundamental correction of the other side of the argument's foothold, it pulls our "sphere of influence", so that it is just right for the service of our point of view. Compared with the positive reasoning of the "push the boat" method, this technique is exactly the opposite of its thinking and behavior.
For example, in the debate on "whether job-hopping is conducive to the functioning of talents", there is such a section of the defense:
Positive side: Zhang Yong, the champion of the National Table Tennis Championships, jumped from Jiangsu to Shaanxi, and the opposing side said that he didn't make any contribution to the people of Shaanxi, which is really chilling! (Applause)
Opposing side: May I ask if it is possible to jump ship to the sports team? This is precisely the reasonable mobility we advocate here ah! (Applause) The other side of the discerning friend wearing the glasses of job-hopping to see the problem, of course, the world is as black as a crow, all the flow is job-hopping. (Applause)
The positive side cites Zhang Yong as an example of a man who, after moving from Jiangsu to Shaanxi, has gained the space to better develop himself, which is true. The opposing side immediately pointed out that the other side of the specific examples cited mistakes: Zhang Yong to the sports team, not through the "job-hopping" this kind of irregular flow of talent to go, but precisely in the "fair, equal, competitive, merit-based" principle of "reasonable mobility" to go, credibility, persuasive, powerful, shock, and received a more obvious effect of the anti-client.
(E) the bottom of the kettle
The tricky selective questioning, is one of the usual offensive moves of many debaters. Usually, this kind of questioning is premeditated, it can put people in a "dilemma" situation, no matter which choice the other side will be unfavorable. The method is, from the other side of the selective questioning, pull out a pre-determined options for a strong cross-examination, fundamentally frustrate the other side of the sharp, this technique is the bottom of the payroll.
For example, in the debate on "ideology and morality should adapt to (and transcend) the market economy", there was the following round of exchanges:
Opposing side: ...I ask whether the spirit of Lei Feng is the spirit of selfless dedication or the spirit of equivalent exchange?
Positive side: ...the other side of the discerning friend here misunderstood the equivalent exchange, equivalent exchange is to say, all the exchanges should be equivalent, but it does not mean that everything is in exchange, Lei Feng has not thought of the exchange, of course, the spirit of Lei Feng can not talk about the equivalent. (Applause)
Opposing side: I would also like to ask the opposing side, is the core of our ideology and morality the spirit of serving the people, or is it the spirit of seeking profit?
Forward: Isn't serving the people a requirement of the market economy? (Applause)
In the first round, the opposing side has the intention of "inviting the king to the urn" and has come prepared. Obviously, if the stereotypical thinking passive answer, it is difficult to deal with the anti-side of the preset "dilemma": choose the former, it just proves the anti-side of the "ideology and morality should be beyond the market economy" point of view; choose the latter, there is a back of the fact that it is even more fallacious. However, the positive side of the debaters have jumped out of the anti-party "either/or" box set up, in turn, a single straight man, from the two preset options out of the "equivalence", in order to pour the tree to find the root of the situation completely overthrow it as a preset option of the correctness of the tone of voice from the calm, sharp, the flexibility of the strain, the skill of the clever, it is breathtaking!
Of course, the actual situation on the defense field is very complex, in order to be passive in the debate for the initiative, to master some of the skills of the host is only one aspect, on the other hand, the host also needs to rely on the very spot on the improvisation, which is no rules to follow.
(F) attack its key
In the debate will often be the case: the two sides are entangled in some of the minutiae of the problem, examples or expression of the argument, as a result, it seems to be arguing a very lively, in fact, has been away from the topic of ten thousand miles. This is a major taboo in debate. An important skill is to be on the other side of the first defense, the second defense statement, quickly determine the other side of the argument in the key issues, so as to seize the issue, an attack in the end, in order to theoretically defeat the other side thoroughly. For example, the key point of the debate question "whether having enough to eat is a necessary condition for talking about morality" is: can we talk about morality when we don't have enough to eat? In the debate, only always grasp this key issue, can give the other side a fatal blow. In debates, people often say that "avoiding the truth is not good enough", and it is necessary to use this technique occasionally. For example, when the other side puts forward a question we can not answer, if the strong do not know that know, reluctantly to answer, not only will lose points, and may even make a joke. In this case, it is necessary to tactfully avoid the other side of the question, and find the other side's weaknesses to attack the past. However, in more cases, we need to "avoid the virtual on the real", "avoid the light on the heavy", that is, good at the basic, key issues on the fight. If the other party mentions the problem, we immediately avoid it, it will inevitably leave a bad impression on the jury and the audience, thinking that we do not dare to face up to the other party's problems. In addition, if we put forward to the other side of the basic thesis and concept of the fight is not strong, is also very lose points. It is an important skill in debate to be able to grasp the opponent's key points and attack them in order to win.
(7) the use of contradiction
Because each side of the debate consists of four members, four members of the debate process will often be contradictory, even if it is the same member of the team, in the free debate, due to the fast speech, there may also be contradictions. Once such a situation occurs, we should immediately seize it and try our best to enlarge the contradiction of the other side, so that it will be too busy to attack us. For example, in the debate with the Cambridge team, the third defense of the Cambridge team thinks that law is not morality, while the second defense thinks that law is the basic morality. These two opinions are obviously contradictory, we take the opportunity to expand the rift between the other two debaters, forcing the other side into a dilemma. Another example is the other side of the first defense at first "food and clothing" as the basic state of human existence, and later in our strong attack, and then talk about "hunger and cold" state, which is contradictory to the previous opinion, our "to his spear, attacking his shield", our "to his spear, attacking his shield". The other side is in a hurry, and is at a loss for words, and is speechless.
(H) "snake out of the hole"
In the debate, there will often be a stalemate: when the other side of the dead hold their arguments, no matter how we attack, the other side only a few words to cope with, if the method of attack is still used, will inevitably have little effect. In this case, we should adjust the means of attack as soon as possible, take a roundabout way, starting from the seemingly unimportant issues, luring the other side to leave the position, so as to combat the other side, in the minds of the judges and listeners to create a sensational effect. When we debated with the Sydney team on "AIDS is a medical issue, not a social issue", the other team was not moved by the opinion that "AIDS is caused by HIV and can only be a medical issue". So, our side adopted the tactic of "luring the snake out of its hole", our second defense suddenly asked: "May I ask the other side, what is the slogan of this year's World AIDS Day? The four opponents looked at each other in dismay, in order not to lose too many points on the field, the other side of the first defense stood up and answered all the answers, our side immediately corrected, pointed out that this year's slogan is "Time is of the essence, take action", which is the same as the other side of the position opened up a gap, thus disintegrating the other side's solid front.
(IX) "Li Dai Peach Stalemate"
When we encountered some logical or theoretical difficult to defend the topic, we had to use "Li Dai Peach Stalemate" method, the introduction of new concepts to resolve the difficulties. For example, "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem" is a very difficult topic to argue, because AIDS is both a medical problem and a social problem, from the point of view of common sense, it is very difficult to separate these two issues. Therefore, according to our preconceived idea, if we were to argue for the affirmative side, we would introduce the new concept of "social impact", thus affirming that AIDS has certain "social impact" but is not a "social problem", and strictly determine that AIDS is a medical problem and a social problem, and that it is not a social problem. We would have introduced the new concept of "social impact", thus affirming that AIDS had certain "social impact" but was not a "social problem", and strictly defined the meaning of "social impact", so that it would be very difficult for the other side to attack us. Later on, we got the opposite side of the question in the lottery, that is, "AIDS is a social problem, not a medical problem". In this case, if we completely deny that AIDS is a medical problem, it would be too contrary to the reasoning, therefore, we introduced the concept of "medical pathway" in the debate, emphasizing the need to use the concept of "social impact", but not "social problem", and strictly defined the meaning of "social impact". Therefore, we introduced the concept of "medical approach" into the debate, emphasizing that AIDS should be solved by means of "social system engineering", and that the "medical approach" was one of the necessary parts of this engineering. In this way, we have more room for maneuver, and the other side has to spend a lot of effort to dwell on the new concepts put forward by us, and its attack power is greatly weakened. "The significance of this tactic is to introduce a new concept to maneuver with the other side, so as to ensure that some of the key concepts in our argument are hidden behind and not directly attacked by the other side.
Debate is a very flexible process, in which some of the more important skills can be utilized. Experience tells us that only by making the accumulation of knowledge and debating skills beads together, it is possible to achieve better results in the debate.
(10) slowing down
In our daily lives, we can see the following situation: when the fire department received a call for help, often use a slow and methodical tone of voice to answer, this kind of gentle tone of voice, in order to stabilize the speaker's mood, so that the other side can correctly explain the situation. Another example is that when two people quarrel, one side is furious and the other is not anxious, and as a result, the latter has the upper hand. Another example is that political thinkers often use the "cold treatment" method to deal with difficult problems slowly. All these situations show that, in some specific occasions, "slow" is also a good way to deal with problems and resolve conflicts. Argumentation is also the same, in some specific argumentative situations, fast attack is unfavorable, slow into the slow movement instead of winning.
For example, in 1940, Churchill served as Secretary of State for the Navy in Chamberlain's cabinet, and was respected for his advocacy of a declaration of war against Germany. At the time, public opinion welcomed Churchill's replacement of Chamberlain as British prime minister, and Churchill thought he was the right man for the job. However, Churchill was not in a hurry but adopted the strategy of "winning by slowing down". He said publicly on several occasions that he would be prepared to serve his country under anyone's leadership during the extraordinary period of the war.
At the time, Chamberlain and other Conservative leaders decided to put forward Lord Halifax, a supporter of appeasement, as their candidate for prime minister. Yet the war-mongering British public recognized that Churchill was the only person in politics with the skills to lead the war. At a meeting to discuss the choice of Prime Minister, Chamberlain asked, "Does Mr. Churchill agree to join a government under Halifax?" The articulate Churchill, however, said nothing and remained silent for a good two minutes. Halifax and the others understood that silence meant opposition. Once Churchill refused to join the cabinet, the new government would be overthrown by an angry public. Halifax had to be the first to break the silence and say that he was unfit to organize a government. Churchill's waiting was finally rewarded by the King of England authorizing him to organize a new government.
Another example, in a store, a customer came to the door in a rage, chattering: "This pair of shoes heel is too high, the style is not good ......" store salesman did not say a word, patiently listening to him finish his sentence, has not interrupted him! The store clerk listened to him patiently without interrupting him. Waiting for the customer no longer said, the salesman said calmly: "Your opinion is very straightforward, I appreciate your personality. In that case, I'll go inside and select another pair so that you can be satisfied." "If you are not satisfied, I would like to serve you again." After the customer had finished venting his dissatisfaction, he felt that he had gone too far and was embarrassed to see the salesman answering his questions so patiently. As a result, he made a 180° turn and praised the sales clerk for giving him new shoes that weren't really that different, saying, "Hey, these shoes are so good, it's like they were custom-made for me." The salesman's slow-to-quick, cold-to-hot approach allowed the customer to vent his anger, achieve psychological balance, and resolve the dispute.
From the above example, we can summarize the correct use of the "slow to win" method in the argument, at least pay attention to the following three points:
One of them is to slow down and wait for the opportunity to pre-empt the latter
As the saying goes, "If you want to go fast, you can't go fast enough. " When the time is not ripe to act hastily, often fail to achieve the purpose. Argumentation is also the same, "slow" in certain conditions is also necessary. The "slow to win" method is actually a delaying tactic in the debate, the delaying tactic is to slow down the other side of the strategy. When the debate situation is not suitable for a quick decision, or when the time is not yet ripe, should avoid the direct exchange of pinpoint, and should be delayed to wait for the arrival of the opportunity to fight. Once the time is ripe, it can be after the attack, victory over the enemy. As in the first example, Churchill, when the time was not ripe, did not rush to success and waited for the opportunity with slowness. At the critical moment of discussing the choice of prime minister, he expressed his opposition with silence and eventually won the victory.
The second is to slow down the strategy to weakness to overcome the strong
"Slow to win" method applies to the disadvantage against the advantage of the weak against the strong argumentative situation. It is a tactical way for the weaker party to overcome the seemingly stronger party. "Slow" in the scheme, slow movement to be skillful. Here the "slow" is not a synonym for slow reaction, not good at speech, but the great wisdom like a fool, the great debate like a nerd eloquent strategist to plan and strategize one of the magic weapons. As in the first example, Churchill in the face of Chamberlain's questioning, pretending to be deaf and dumb, stalling for time, in fact, is a false idiot not crazy slow tactics. In this kind of toughness in the hold, the Chamberlain side finally sullen, Churchill to slow trick finally won the victory.
Third, slow to anger to cold to hot
"Slow" in the debate is still a very good "check anger" technique. The debate in the sword, the less self-control people are very easy to get excited. In this case, to persuade the overly excited people, it is appropriate to use slow motion, slow tone of voice to cope with. To slow anger, cold to hot, in order to make it "cool down and decompression". Only the other side of the peace of mind, you talk about the reason he can smoothly
Li accept. Such as the second example of the salesman, is to calm attitude, and gentle tone, calm the anger of the other side, resolved the conflict.
In short, the "fast" and "slow" in the debate is also a dialectical relationship of unity. The first one is the "fastest", and the second one is the "slowest", which is the best. However, sometimes "slow" also has the advantages of "slow". "Slow" can wait for an opportunity, "slow" can be used to strategize, "slow" can control anger. "Slow" is a tactic of toughness, "slow" is a protracted battle, "slow" is a slow tactic in the battle of tongues. Slow motion slow into the time spent although long, around the bend although big, however, in many cases, it is often a shortcut to victory .
Dewey's concept of knowledge and action had a special significance during his trip to China, where the revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, the reformist Hu Shi and the educator Tao Xingzhi were all influenced by him. For example, Sun Yat-sen opposed the traditional Chinese saying that "it is easy to know and difficult to do" and held the saying that "it is difficult to know and easy to do", emphasizing the importance of revolutionary theory to the revolutionary cause and inspiring the revolutionary party with the feasibility of practice. In 1919, Dewey met with Dr. Sun Yat-sen shortly after his arrival in China, and discussed the relationship between knowledge and practice. Dewey said to Mr. Sun, "If you put too much emphasis on practicality, you will not be able to put it into practice, and no one in the West believes that 'knowing' is an easy thing to do." {In his speeches in China, he also discussed the relationship between knowledge and action many times:
I have heard that in ancient China there was a saying that "Knowing is not difficult, but acting is difficult. The method of experimentation is the opposite of this. It is that only by doing can we know, and without action there is no real knowledge. Without action, there is no real knowledge. With action, one can discover new light, organized facts, and previously unfulfilled knowledge. Therefore it is said that without action there can never be true knowledge. {
Dewey's pragmatic epistemology, which is based on action, and which he called "pragmatic epistemology," is summarized thus:
Its essential feature is its insistence on the continuity between knowledge and the activity of purposely altering one's environment. Pragmatist epistemology asserts that knowledge, in the strict sense, consists of all the resources of our reason - all the habits that make our actions wise. Only the kind of knowledge that has been organized into our mental dispositions, that enables us to adapt our environment to our needs and to adapt our aims and aspirations to the situations in which we find ourselves, is true knowledge. Knowledge is not merely what we are now aware of, but consists of the mental tendencies that we consciously employ in understanding what is happening now. Knowledge as an action is the consideration of the connection between ourselves and the world in which we live, the mobilization of a part of our mental tendencies in order to solve a perplexing problem. {30}
Perhaps because of its prominent emphasis on action, pragmatism has tended to be understood as making action the purpose of life. Dewey clarifies this misunderstanding by pointing out that action is the agent in the process of applying concepts to existence, and that the change in existence that results from the application constitutes the real meaning of the concepts. Pragmatism, therefore, in no way celebrates the kind of action for action's sake that has come to characterize American life.
Dewey's placing of knowledge in a process that begins with the experience of action and returns to it for verification, as described above, might be called "action produces knowledge"; but this does not mean that he ignores the fact that the discovery of new facts and truths is more valuable than the argumentation of old theories. In discussing the transformation of philosophy from the old to the new way of thinking, he cites the example of Bacon. He presented with some admiration that Bacon reasonably argued that whatever reasoning looks upon the method of knowledge as an argument for established truths is frustrating the spirit of research and fettering the mind so that it cannot go beyond the traditional bounds of learning. Bacon sharply declared that the discovery of new facts and new truths, obtained by thorough inquiry into the secrets of nature, was superior to the old arguments. As the father of induction, Bacon saw that the significance of science lies in the march into the unknown, not in the repeated recital of the reasoning of what is already known-that the infinite and continuous discovery of unknown facts and principles is the true spirit of induction. Dewey's this induction, can be called "action out of the new knowledge". Whether it is "true knowledge" or "new knowledge", it means that action makes knowledge effective, and the influence of education on the individual and the transformation of society can be realized by this.
In education, Dewey advocated "learning by doing," which is the full application of the principle of action in education. In the experimental schools, inquiry into the relationship between knowledge and action is an integral part of the philosophy of education.
(2) Rejection of Absolutism
Dewey believed that the progress of experimental science had dealt the most direct blow to the traditional separation of action and knowledge and to the subject of pure "knowledge". It showed that people could only gain true knowledge and effective understanding by doing. He suggested the experimental method, which had been widely used in the natural sciences since the seventeenth century, as a method of forming and testing ideas about social and moral problems, and which, in his view, was a method of acquiring knowledge and of ensuring that it was knowledge and not merely opinion, a method of discovery as well as proof. The activities of men, unless they produce changes in things which conform to and confirm the concepts they hold, are beliefs which are no more than hypotheses, theories, hints, and conjectures, and which can only be accepted provisionally for use as attempts at experimentation. The experimental method of science is an experiment of concepts; experimentation is not the same as blind reaction; one needs to observe the consequences of experiments and to predict and plan in similar future situations; the laboratory is about discovering conditions. Experience becomes actual, not cognitive, but action and the bearing of the consequences of action, so that experience ceases to be empirical and becomes experimental-"experience as experiment." {31} But Dewey was fully aware of the enormity of the implementation of this suggestion of his, for he saw that men are often accustomed to the support of beliefs determined by dogma and authority, in order to relieve them of the dilemma of thinking and of the responsibility of guiding their activity through thought. He cites Mill as saying that the schools of his day were "better fitted to produce believers than inquirers." {32}But he believed that one day epistemology must come from practice.
The experimental approach meant rejecting absolute dogma. In Dewey's view, many philosophies equate the real with the definite, the regular, the finished, and seek to ascribe a complete, finished, and definite character to the world as it actually exists. And the empirical philosophy he proposes presents a world of relativity: truth and error, eternity and change, newness and repetition, life and death, all go hand in hand, and it is in terms of relativity that Heraclitus and Lao Tzu interpret the world.
The same is true of conditions in nature, where the nature of the problematic is combined with the nature of the determinate, a combination that makes every existence, as well as every idea and every activity of man, an experiment. To be rationally experimental is to be aware of this interlocking state of the conditions of nature, and thus to utilize them, rather than to be at their mercy. Dewey used the theory of relativity to show that change is relative by virtue of speed and acceleration compared to other things, and that statements of constancy and permanence are also relative. "A thing may last a thousand ages, but it is not eternal; as soon as it exceeds a certain limit, it is crushed by the teeth of time. Every existence is an event." {33}
Absolutism, on the other hand, is contrary to the spirit of experiment. Absolutism is closely and intrinsically related to monism. Dewey refers with appreciation to James's 1907 lecture for his views on monism and pluralism. In James's view, monism adheres to a rigid absolutism in which anything is fixed and unchangingly bound up with other things, where indeterminacy, free choice, novelty, and that which cannot be foreseen in experience have no place; that universe sacrifices the concrete and complex diversity of things for the simplicity and nobility of an architectural structure. In terms of belief, monism demands a rationalist disposition leading to a fixed dogmatic attitude. Pluralism, on the other hand, makes room for contingency, for freedom, for novelty, and grants to the empirical method a complete freedom of action which is capable of great expansion. It recognizes unity where it finds it, but it does not attempt to force the great diversity of events and things into a single, rational model. In short, monism essentially stifles the spirit of freedom, and any kind of authoritarian system tends to suppress freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of belief by means of uniformity of thought. What pluralism espouses, on the other hand, is tolerance for the existence of different opinions, the soil, rain and sunshine that nurtures freedom.
Dewey argued that the very nature of experience, which is ever-advancing and ever-changing, precludes completeness and finality. All concepts, doctrines, and systems, must be regarded as hypotheses, as the basis for validating action, not as the end of action. {In his opinion, all existing knowledge and concepts are relative in "space and time", there is no universal truth, truth is relative, and has different forms of development and manifestation in different spatial and temporal contexts, philosophical questions and arguments are not eternal, and they should be related to the urgent local affairs of the time, and all points of view need to be examined on their own merits. Philosophical questions and arguments are not eternal, and they should be related to the urgent matters of the time and place, and all ideas need to be critically examined on the basis of their "spatial and temporal character", in order to resist the absolutism of knowledge and concepts. This is the value of experimental experience. Experimental experience implies that ideas are hypotheses, not final truths, and that they must be constantly tested and revised in order to be expressed more precisely. Concepts and hypotheses can be verified on the basis of the results produced by the conceptual or hypothetical activity. In the experimental method, one needs to make reflective comments and summary summaries of the results of ideas, actions and observations, by which one looks back at what has been done in the past and draws out from it the pure meaning as a major resource for dealing wisely with the future.
Dewey's opposition to absolutes and finality was expressed in this way in a speech in China:
We are not trying to make an arbitrary assertion, nor are we trying to have a cure for all diseases. Our real task is to raise many questions, and to attend occasionally to one or two opinions. {35}
In China, this passage was transformed by Hu Shih and became widely known through a famous debate in modern Chinese history: in July 1919, Hu Shih published a series of articles in the Weekly Review on "Problems and Doctrines," which triggered a heated debate between Li Dazhao, Lan Zhixian, and others. In the view of Hu, who adhered to Dewey's liberal ideas and experimental methods, valuable ideas begin with the study of a concrete problem, the examination of its crux, the envisioning of a solution based on one's personal knowledge and experience, the speculation of the possible consequences of each hypothetical solution, and the final selection of the solution to the problem from the results of the speculation:
More study of concrete problems, less talk about abstract doctrine.
More study of concrete problems, less of abstraction. All doctrines, all theories, should be studied, but only as some hypothetical insights, not as a creed; only as a reference to confirm the material, not as a religion of the golden rule; only as a tool to inspire the mind, but not to be used as a blinding cleverness, to stop the thought of the absolute truth. Only in this way can the creative power of thought be gradually developed in mankind, can mankind gradually be empowered to solve concrete problems, and can mankind gradually be liberated from the superstition of abstract terms. {36}
Hu Shih likened "ism" to a recipe for a soup that a doctor uses as a reference to cure a patient's pain; the doctor must not just remember the recipe and forget the patient's pain (the "problem"). For example, on the question of "modernization", he believes that the essence is: how to solve China's difficulties in order to build up a strong China, so that she can occupy a safe and equal position in the modern world. "The problem lies in building up China, not in building up a certain doctrine." Chen Duxiu held a similar view that "there is no absolute right or wrong, but the right time is the right time for the rise and fall of things". Tao Hsing-chi also insisted: "Only by thoroughly studying one's own needs and problems can one be sure of formulating an educational system that is truly suitable for and serves China's national conditions
Let reason persuade both sides
We know that the debate in an argumentative contest does not need to persuade the other side, but only needs to persuade the jury and the audience; as long as the jury and the audience are persuaded, the argument will be won. persuaded, the argument is won. This is not the case with everyday argumentation, which aims at softening the opposition, and which requires not only convincing the other side but also preparing oneself to be convinced (which is exactly what argumentation