Recently I have seen a big uptick in the word “pilpul”, which is a jewish word to describe a longwinded religious argument, usually viewed as hairsplitting arguments regarding scripture interpretation.
My issue with this word is:
“WOWY! I learned a new word on teh internetz! I am SOOO clever for using words that were spoonfed to me and are being used by everyone else!”
Implying that the person you are arguing with is jewish shows a certain level of “I do not want rational discussion”. This is especially true if the person you are arguing with is a fellow kike-hater, or the argument is not about religion.
Just because you cannot make a valid counterargument does not mean something is “pilpul”. Fuck it, why have discussion at all? It is all “pilpul” apparently.
I think my main issue with the word “technicality” is that I HIGHLY doubt that people who use the word “technicality” or “pilpul” against arguments that they dislike, but cannot disprove, would call out an argument they agree with for being hairsplitting.
If you accuse someone’s argument of being a “technicality” or “splitting hairs”, but only if you do not like the argument being made, and never using such terms against arguments that you like/agree with…
Then “technicality” loses meaning, beyond: “I can’t admit that I lost the argument and am no longer willing to have a rational discussion.”
There have been numerous times in the past where I make an entirely valid point against a challenger and, instead of making a counter point, or admitting I made a good point, they will COMPLETLEY DERAIL the discussion and say “Das pilpul cuz I sed so!”
No point in having discussion no more. No one respects the art of conversation. No one admits when they have been proven wrong.
My understanding is that pilpul means “fully general counterargument,” (any argument that could prove or disprove anything is meaningless, principle of explosion) so if that isn’t a criticism of your argument they’re just misusing it.
If you accuse someone’s argument of being a “technicality” or “splitting hairs”, but only if you do not like the argument being made, and never using such terms against arguments that you like/agree with…
Reminds me of something I was thinking not long ago, sort of viewing that last part from the other side: people start to accept paradoxes. They look at something counterintuitive and say “Wow, a paradox.” Then weeks later they look at a completely logical argument that completely upends their worldview and say “Wow, another paradox. What a grand mystery!” Then they go about their day, their week, their month. I don’t keep the stress points in my worldview at the front of my mind, I’ve got things I need to do.
You almost shouldn’t let an adjective like “paradoxical” into your diction. Why describe something as merely reminiscent of contradiction? Contradiction should be a sharp jolt, “Wake up! You don’t understand why there aren’t any aliens!” It shouldn’t be familiar, it shouldn’t bear any casual resemblance to anything you’re familiar with except the experience of feeling surprised, of checking your assumptions.
I live a casual secular life with a casual secular worldview. If I read something about space, the origin of life or evolution I just add it to my brain, I don’t ask “How does this change my 5 most likely explanations for there being no aliens.” Really, I should be obsessed with resolving even the most impractical far-away contradictions.