Bulverism

C.S. Lewis’ article, “Bulverism,” explains the concept that many debates in our society focus on judging a person’s motives with the presupposed assumption that their arguments are wrong. People’s wrong motives, rather than the validity of their arguments, discredit their claim. When this type of debate occurs, the focus of the game is to prove and explain the corrupted intentions of your opponent, rather than exploring the rationality of your opponent’s arguments. Each person assumes that their opponent’s argument is based on unrelated causes, while their argument is based on reason.

As soon as I read Lewis’ article on Bulverism, I tied it back to some of his points brought up in “Meditation in a toolshed.” In a debate, the person on one side of the debate will strongly uphold their views and perspectives. They “look along” and experience their beliefs personally. Yet they will “look at” their opponent’s arguments, without having the personal conviction and experience their opponent has. However in the context of Bulverism, one who “looks at” an argument is not actually analyzing the evidence and rationality of their opponent’s arguments; instead they are assuming their opponent is wrong and judging their opponent’s motives. While people on both side of the debate may have solid and rational arguments, each one looks at the other and sees unfounded beliefs based on causes, rather than reasons. If this is the case, Bulverism is no way to discern the truth. We all “look along” our arguments and automatically reject opposing arguments, without giving them proper thought and consideration.

I believe that exploring whether opposing arguments are right or wrong can lead us to discover truths. If we fully explore and grasp opposing thoughts and reasoning, yet still reach the conclusion that our arguments are valid, this will greatly strengthen our own arguments. It allows us to take a step away from our own view and “look at” our arguments. If our reasoning is right, it will stand the test of analysis and questioning. On the other hand, if we value truth above all else, we will be willing to accept opposing arguments if we find that our opponent’s arguments surpass our own in truth.