Don’t Waste Your Breath: Abandoning Dialogue with the Left

It is becoming more and more apparent that engaging with individuals who place themselves on the left side of the political aisle is a useless endeavour. To be clear, I’m not talking about arguing with such people, but simply about speaking with them. Where many have abandoned arguing with the left, few have yet realised that the same reasoning also applies to any form of communication at all. In an attempt to avoid being labelled “close-minded,” many still hold open the hope of some kind of dialogue between the two sides. However, if Western civilisation is ever to heal the wounds it has received in this current culture war, that hope needs to be summarily dismissed.

The answer to ‘Why?’ lies in the connection between argumentation, communication, and reason. “Why has arguing with individuals on the left become a useless endeavour?” some might ask. The simple answer is, “because it’s like beating your head against a brick wall.” (A more apt colloquialism would be “because it’s like beating the air.”) The less poetic way of describing it, however, is as follows.

Correct argumentation, as opposed to sophistry, is a part of logic. Logic proceeds on the necessary three-step process of simple apprehension, judgment, and reason. Simple apprehension is defining terms in accord with objective reality, without making any judgment about them; judgment is an intellectual accent to the proposition made with the previously defined terms (i.e. accenting that the proposition is true); reason is the process of taking two or more known true propositions and combining them to learn something new. One must note here that when reason is subject correctly to the above process, it is known as (as Cicero coined the phrase) right reason, or reason in accord with reality. Argumentation is, so to speak, the battleground of competing ideas to learn which (if any) of those competing ideas followed the above process correctly and produced actual knowledge. And while this is a process of its own, it can not produce anything of value unless the above steps are respected as necessary for correct argumentation. Therefore, nothing fruitful can come from arguing with the left because they do not admit to this process—most notably rejecting simple apprehension and reason (as will be shown.)

The further left on the political spectrum one goes, the more likely an individual is to recognise that reason needs to be abandoned if the ‘liberal’ ideal is to be upheld. The liberal ideal is easily summed up in the word liberal—the liberation of the individual. “Liberation of the individual from what?” you might ask. Well, in essence, it is the liberation from anything that contradicts the notion that the individual can exist as a self-sustaining whole. In other words, if the individual can not invest himself completely in the notion of “I think, therefore I am,” he is not truly liberated. 

To be liberated then is to see the world through a lens of self and only through the lens of self. If any other filter dares intercede, oppression (the opposite of liberation) ensues. And while many moderate liberals would argue that this is a preposterous notion, the individuals on the medium to far left would categorise this mindset of the moderate liberal as “internalised oppression.” Indeed, one needs only to find the exposed nerve of ‘oppression’ that has driven the moderate liberal to the left side of the fence, push on it, and thus quickly see how fast he abandons moderation. (This nerve, by the way, is usually located in the genital area.)

If, then, only the lens of self is acceptable, the world must be ‘explored’ through the subjective self (as opposed to through objective reality.) Liberal ‘reason’ is reason in accord with the self, rather than reason in accord with reality. As such, simple apprehension is destroyed completely, ‘reason’ is corrupted, logic becomes sophistry, and productive argumentation (a form of complex communication) becomes impossible. However, if probed further, we can see that this is true for all forms of communication, not just complex communication.

The traditionally rational individual proceeds upon the principle of ‘The Truth’, or, more simply, ‘reality’. The liberal individual proceeds upon ‘my truth’, or ‘my reality’. The former is known as objective reality, while the latter is known as subjective reality. However, communication is predicated upon language, and language is understood (by two or more individuals) only when both parties accept the meaning of the words. For two or more traditionally rational individuals, this is acceptable as they mutually accept the fact that objective reality rightly imposes itself upon them. As a rudimentary form of simple apprehension, this generates a meaning for words that is more important than each individual’s approval. But since the liberal can not accept any imposition upon the self, to him only words with self-generated (subjective) meaning are acceptable. And again, while this statement appears absurd on its face, it simply means that the meaning of any word can change at any time as long as the liberal has a personally justifiable ‘reason’ to make that change.

Now, because of the limitations of human beings, and the way we learn, even traditionally rational individuals must accept that first, we don’t know everything, and second, we are subject to fault. Our interpretations and/or acceptance of objective reality are inevitably flawed. Therefore, there is always a play within the use of language that accepts these limitations of its users. Under such conditions, communication is balanced by the fact that, no matter what is gained or lost, the objective reality under which it and its users exist will always remain the same. 

Under such a system, if one can genuinely (according to reality) point out a flaw in my thinking, it is not a loss for me, but a gain, as I now understand reality better. However, under the ‘self-generated meaning’ language of the liberal, all fault on behalf of the user is perceived as a loss to the subjective reality under which it exists, and thus to the individual. And, if such a condition occurs, the liberal individual perceives themselves to be “oppressed.”

For the liberal to continue to exist as a liberal, all communication on behalf of the liberal individual must be bent toward the liberal individual coming out on top. All communication undertaken must affirm the self-generated (i.e. subjective) reality of the liberal individual. And the way that this is accomplished is by the liberal individual twisting and/or changing the meaning of the words being used so that only his definition of reality is expressed within the communication.

In essence, for the liberal individual ‘communication’ is always a one-way street. They are allowed to impart information to the second party. Still, no information is allowed to pass in the other direction (unless, of course, that information is already known and accepted by the liberal individual). Under such a system, language can be used as a one-way imperative (i.e. to give orders), but not to communicate, as communication implies an exchange of information between two or more people. 

Further, this mindset makes its holder the most dangerous of individuals. As has been recognised since the time of Plato and Aristotle, the person who judges all things by the standard of self rather than by the standard of reality will always value what is their own above what is true. Not only is individual communication with such a person futile, but the more that you or others try to engage with them the more language is robbed of the essential quality needed to properly function—that being the trust that all parties involved in communication are acting in good faith. This, of course, also extends to the prohibition of real-world solutions to any problem that arises, as solutions that are based on subjective reality can not be translated to exterior matter (i.e. the world around us) as that world is purely objective. 

In short, when communication is attempted with an individual whose highest standard is ‘self’, the second party loses; society loses. Nothing of value (not even a valid idea) can be created or clarified from such exchanges. All is simply sacrificed for the aggrandisement of the selfish individual.

R. J. Shaw has undergraduate degrees in classics, history, and politics, and has attended a graduate program in political theory concentrating on classical political theory and the history of ideas. He currently operates a successful legal research business, and writes and publishes graphic novels. You can find him on YouTube where he discusses the traditional definition of a hero, and its contrast with the pop culture of today.