I go out of my way to find places where contentious topics are being discussed, and there to stake out a clear position, which I then defend. This makes me stronger as a thinker, and VERY often leads me in new directions in my thinking. I highly encourage it, and anyone who isn’t doing this often is not reaching their potential; not even close.
A common pattern I see is the argument that I am wrong because I am not in the middle. This is offered with no substantive comment on my own views, or a demonstrated understanding of the opposing position. One can offer this comment without even reading or understanding anything of the issues involved.
This argument itself–the fabled “the truth lies somewhere in the middle”–is an argument that can be used on itself. Upon what basis can I not argue that the middle of THAT argument would necessarily lead us to conclude that sometimes the truth does NOT lie in the middle?
Or take this statement: “All valid truths admit exceptions.” If this is true, then sometimes there ARE truths which do NOT admit exceptions.
The point of discourse is to examine individual, discrete situations and problems. Always, always, always philosophy has to have to do with solving concrete problems. That is how I define it, so that truth–my truth, obviously–admits of no exceptions; it is tautological.
But this claim can, itself, be criticized, do you see? So often, I see the argument that my opponents do not need to take a position, since the position “the truth lies in the middle” is sufficient. But that, itself, is a position, which they DON’T defend. If you are talking, you can’t not take a position. You can say “I have no position”, which is fine and honest, and if that is true, genuine learning, communication, and progress can happen. That is still a position, though.
What is taught in our supposedly higher centers of education is that tolerance is a universal necessity–it is the only virtue beyond question–and the “truth in the middle” position is integral to that. Yet, if you are merely parroting it, you are not thinking.
The essence of a genuinely liberal society, one in which both ideological and cultural diversity are valued, is negotiation. It is where the parties themselves come into a parley, each with a position, and each of whom walks away having offered up some compromise, but without giving up who they are and what they value completely. Practically, the truth DOES often lie in the middle, but to reject a priori the possibility of truths which are absolute in their context–given the evaluational criteria in place–is to reject rationality altogether.
I will add that there is a reductio ad absurdum here. If I sit at a table–say in Petrograd in 1919 or so–and argue that 10 million class criminals should be murdered, and someone else says that none should die, the truth is not that 5 million should die. And in point of fact, setting out radical positions is a common negotiating technique among people whose chief aim is getting as much of their way as possible, while pretending to be reasonable. You simply ask for 2-3 times whatever it is you want, then settle for what you want, and maybe a bit more.
People without moral compass, or organizing principles are virtually defenseless against this tactic. Indeed, if your only belief is that the truth is in the middle, you will get screwed every time.