You are all probably familiar with the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’—a person arguing from a point of view which they do not necessarily consider their own. Where does this peculiar term come from? What is the importance of playing Devil’s Advocate?—why would you argue for a position that you do not even believe in yourself? The answers to these questions are vital for any aspiring freethinker.
A fact of funness (no, not a word, sadly), for those of you interested, is that the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’ originated in the Catholic Church in the 16th century. During the canonization process—the process that one goes through to become a Saint—there is a ‘trial’ of sorts to see if the person is up to snuff. The Devil’s Advocate is essentially a ‘lawyer’ that argues against the canonization of the potential saint, in order to ensure that the person is truly Sainthood material. He makes sure there are no skeletons in the soon-to-be Saint’s closet (a service that the United States Government should look into acquiring, if they can spare any money on nonmilitary operations). Incidentally, late Pope John Paul II did away with the Devil’s Advocate position in the 1980’s, which does indeed explain a lot. Such as the canonization of the Opus Dei cult leader, Josemaría Escrivá—where was his Devil’s Advocate?
We must remember that the Devil’s Advocate is most of the time not really against the canonozation of the Saint prospect. He is most likely all for the person becoming a Saint. He is merely arguing against the person for the sake of argument, so that any unforseen factors will surface. And, as you can tell, this brings us to the commonplace usage of the term.
If a Rawlsian political thinker was to propose to me his view of what government should be, I might take on the persona of a Nozickian political thinker in order to challenge his ideas and prompt him to defend himself against opposition. I am a far cry from a libertarian, so why would I impersonate one in order to have a conversation with the Rawlsian thinker? If I also suscribe to Rawls’ theories, which I tend to, why not just agree with him on the face of the issue, and move on? The reason is, playing Devil’s Advocate is a very valuable asset to any discussion. If I were to become Nozick, in the metaphorical sense, and argue vehemently against the Rawlsian proponent, I would force him to provide sound support for every claim that he makes. In doing so, not only will I have a more full and comprehensive grasp of his political position, but he will also become either more convinced of his views if he is successful in defending them, or disenchanted with them if I am able to be persuasive enough as the Devil’s Advocate. Furtheremore, while I am arguing from Nozick’s point of view (a point of view that I tend to abhor), I gain a better understanding of an opposing point of view. In other words, I am able to walk a couple miles in the shoes of a libertarian. This bolsters my ability to argue against libertarian ideals in future debates. Or, if the libertarian shoes are sufficiently comfortable and stylish, I may decide to join the libertarian ranks.
Playing Devil’s Advocate is an important exercise for all of us as responsible freethinkers and citizens of the world. It allows us to see arguments in a new light. We are better able to objectively understand situations if we are able to adopt other people’s mindsets. I often will play Devil’s Advocate against a person who has similar views as myself, in order to strengthen my own views. I suggest you all take the time to play Devil’s Advocate in a discussion once in a while, to see what it feels like to be on the other side of the couch. Maybe it wont be as bad as you expected, or perhaps it will make your side all the more comfy.
5.08.2005
devil's advocate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Arguing for a position that you really dislike can sometimes be somewhat unsettling or even plain disgusting. But other than that, if you can get over the difficulty of taking a stance you hate, I think you are right. Playing DA is the best thing you can do to help yourself in the long run.
This is a cool blog.
Devil's advocate... a really important role in any fields. However, sometime the role/ position of Devil's advocate has been misused, e.g. argue just for the sake to prove that one is right and the other is wrong. Winning the argument seems to be the utmost purpose, not gaining benefits/ advantages from the argument.
The proper word to be used should be "discussion" instead of argument? DA is not just an argument but is a discussion to improve things. When we discuss, we bring in our point of views; when we argue, we just put in whatever "weapons" to kill our opponents off.
The word "advocate" seems to me that the "devil" party should be rationale, not siding any party and be the middleman of the other two parties. He should not sound his opinion whenever he likes, but when he has consider all the elements/ point of views proposed by the two parties in the "discussion". Or else, from the very beginning, it would be a 2-1 parties discussion.
Logical, fair and rationale should be the motto of a DA, don't you think so?
Anyone schooled in rhetoric (A.K.A. anyone who graduated high school) knows that, in formal, persuasive document, it is standard to include a counterpoint. It shows the strength and viability of one's own argument. To present an opposing point and then make it seem less reasonable than one's own point only fortifies a conviction and is more likely to sway an audience. Seems kind of foolish, to contradict oneself only to contradict oneself again, but that's rhetoric for you. In conversation, it would be more functional and less contradictory because "playing Devil's Advocate" would really just translate as skepticism or the brainstorming process.
Term Devil's advocate comes from the Roman Catholic church ; when a person is to be beatified..they quote miracles etc as reasons for
Priests who argue against are called Devil's Advocates
ppl who can do this tactic often are say teachers, marketeers etc ;-))
It is devilish to disagree? Or is the egg just deviled (sp?). Thanks for reading my blog. I will read yours and hopefully make less a silly comment.
Actually, yesterday I demonstrated in San Francisco with other teachers. The school system in this city is horrifically evil and corrupt. I held up a sign which I considered cryptic. It said "Take him (Schwarzenegger, the governor) back to Hollywood--better yet: Austria." I'm really upset about "Congress's" voting on identity necessary for border crossing. European whites are not affected.
Devil's Advocate.....someone who takes the opposing view of a topic for the sole purpose of debate. By wanting to argue with someone...'you' are being 'bad' and on the 'wrong' side of an issue. Hence - arguing on behalf of the devil's point of view....does that make sense?? At least that's what being a devil's advocate means to me. ;)
I'm all for playing Devil's Advocate when it comes to my own beliefs to be sure I am justified in believing what I believe. But I would never use it with someone I agreed with unless I got their approval in advance.
http://discussreligion.tripod.com
DEVIL'S ADVOCACY (DA) as established and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church is not unlike the methodology employed by institutions of government, religion, and business for millenia. One that has been time-tested and plays a central role in the maintenance and social acceptance of the authority of our institutions.
An institutional authority does not want his important decisions easily challenged or debunked, since the wisdom of those decisions reflect directly on that authority and his power. So on an important decision, he may appoint an investigator or advocate to identify the potential weaknesses and faults of a decision and to argue from the opposing viewpoint. However, the investigator or advocate gets his authority from and reports to the appointing authority, so his actual findings are subject to undue influence and control and are kept confidential.
A government leader may assign a so-called independent counsel to investigate decisions of his administration, only to exert undue influence to control the investigation process and block full public disclosure.
In the case of canonization, the Vatican assigns a DA who reports its findings directly back to the church authority. The findings of the DA may influence the outcome of the decision. However, to chill any criticism of its decision and authority by those outside its direct control, the Vatican can declare the issue closed since the hallowed and revered process prescribed by mother church and cherished by generations of members has already been completed and blessed.
CANONIZATION is used by the church to acknowledge the importance and contribution of different peoples of the world and spread its message of peace and love. But it also wields this powerful tool to expand its influence and power by bringing many new souls under its authority, particularly in countries with high birth-rates. Hence, the recent and numerous Latin America and African canonizations.
I often do this with other people without realizing it since I tend not to take a solid viewpoint on most subjects. The downside is that people tend not to realize that I am not particularly in favor of what I am supporting and often end up childishly attacking my character rather than my argument . . .
Post a Comment