Changing the world one premise at a time: Argument, imagination and post-truth

Abstract

In this essay, I address the challenges to good argumentation and reasoning posed by the post-truth order, and argue that there is an acute need for argumentation theory to re-present ways in which emotion and reason work together to form, scrutinise and revise deeply held beliefs. I begin by considering deeply held beliefs, discussing the types of beliefs that tend to be deeply held and the ways in which they are acquired. Focussing on deeply held beliefs that are relevant to our sociopolitical imaginaries, beliefs that are prone to prejudice, bias and stereotyping associated with gender, race, sexuality, disability, class and other markers of difference and marginalisation, I consider the ways deeply held beliefs play a framework role in reinforcing our ways of being within the world. With inspiration from Moira Gatens’ and Genevieve Lloyd’s Spinozistic take on the role of the imagination in changing our ways of being, as well as from Iris Marion Young’s work on asymmetrical reciprocity, in what follows I will discuss approaches to critical thinking that involve showing rather than stating alternatives to deeply held beliefs. In particular, I will focus on those involving narratives that provide alternative pictures and make epistemic use of lived experiences to shift and transform our imaginations by offering insights into the lives of others. I argue that such approaches offer more effective means of opening deeply held beliefs up to critical scrutiny and possible revision than approaches that seek simply to state the truth of contrary beliefs.