Touch Grass or How to Keep your Arguments Grounded
The Role of Giving Examples in Writing and Philosophy
Philosophy is often accused of being disconnected from real life. Some say that it is just a bunch of people sitting around and talking about obscure impractical things. For example, who (except the most diehard philosopher) really cares about the true nature of color? It has nothing to do with people’s everyday life.
If we as philosophers and thinkers are going to shake off this image, the perfect place to start is by giving examples. We need to give examples of the points that we make, the concepts that we use, and how our theories are, and philosophy in general is, practical, impacting our daily lives in ways that we are not even aware of. In fact, it is not just philosophical arguments, but any argument is better off with some good examples.
Here, I would like to go over two important roles that examples play in arguments: explaining our ideas and grounding our ideas. I will use examples (yes, examples of examples!) to show how famous philosophers have used examples to do this. By doing so, I hope to help you understand both the importance of examples and how to use them in your own philosophy.
Explaining
Philosophy is full of complex and confusing things which can leave even the most seasoned philosopher questioning their life choices. However, this should come as no surprise as the subject matter of philosophy by its very nature requires unusual, if not complex, concepts in order to talk about.
For example, the nature of language is a tricky subject to talk about because in order to talk about it, we have to use language. It’s like trying to explain boxing by boxing, it’s hard to get the nuances of the sport while getting punched in the face.
However, this difficulty has never stopped philosophers from trying to explain their views. Philosophers have relied on real world examples to help explain their points by giving us an easy way to connect to and understand their thought. Kant, a philosopher who is perhaps famous for being difficult to understand, is a good example.
Kant gives examples to make even his clearer concepts easier to understand. In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant lists four kinds of duties: perfect duties toward ourselves, perfect duties toward others, imperfect duties toward ourselves and imperfect duties toward others. He then gives a real life example of what each of the duties looks like.
Perfect duty toward oneself — Example: Never commit suicide.
Perfect duty toward others — Example: Only make promises you intend to keep.
Imperfect duty toward oneself — Example: Developing your own talents.
Imperfect duty toward others — Example: Contributing to the happiness of others.
The difference between a duty to ourselves and a duty to others is pretty straightforward. They are actions which we do for the sake of ourselves or for the sake of someone else. However, what is less clear is the difference between a ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ duty.
Looking at the examples above, Kant gives us insights into what he means. The two perfect duties are specific acts (i.e. committing suicide and making a promise) as well as universal statements (i.e. never and only). This means that they are singular actions that apply to everyone at all times.
The imperfect duty examples are more general and depend on the person(s) whom the act is for. Developing my talents will look very different from developing your talents as we might have different abilities. Likewise, what contributes to my happiness might not contribute to your happiness. Because of this, no specific action can be required (as in perfect duties) and instead we are required to act toward a certain goal (e.g. happiness and personal development) with room to pursue that goal based on context.
Before moving on, it is important to mention the distinction between examples and analogies. What is important to note is that while both examples and analogies help us understand the argument, analogies do not connect the argument to the real world like examples do.
For example, Plato’s famous allegory of the cave helps us understand our relationship to knowledge. The uneducated are like prisoners in a cave looking at shadows cast on the wall thinking they know what the real world is like. It is not until they break the chains of ignorance and step out of the cave and see the sun do they truly know what the world is like.
However, it is not a real life example of how knowledge works. We are not actually in a cave and then move outside to see things as they really are. Thus, the analogy helps us understand Plato’s theory of knowledge and truth but does not show how it might connect to real life.
Connecting Ideas to Life
The difference between analogies and examples highlights the second important role that examples play in arguments. Examples are what ground an argument, connecting it to real life and giving it persuasive power. Even if we have good reasons for agreeing with something, if it does not have meaning for our life, then what is the point?
For example, there are arguments for the existence of intelligent life on other planets and supported by reasons such as the sheer size of the universe and probability theory. However, if the argument lacks any connection to our daily lives, it feels hard to care about the topic. This is because both believing in alien life and not believing look the same.
If someone were to add the example that their cousin has met intelligent life and they ask him, for the sake of the universe let's say, to stop eating ice cream, the argument has real value. This is because the existence of intelligent life out in the universe becomes real with tangible effects. My decision on whether to believe in alien life will cause my life to look very different.
In my research area of philosophy of language, sentences are used as examples of philosophical points. One of my favorite examples is from Bertrand Russell’s On Denoting where he points out that there are sentences which are both not true and not false, thus seemingly violating Aristotle’s law of excluded middle.
The claim by itself seems a bit outrageous, how can a sentence not be true or false? To back up his claim, Russell gives the example sentence
The present king of France is bald.
This sentence is problematic since there is no present king of France (France is a republic not a monarchy) and thus cannot be true (i.e. there is no king of France) or false (i.e. the king of France is not not bald).
What makes this sentence truly fascinating is that the sentence seems to be meaningful. In other words, we are not left dumbfounded by it like we would with a sentence such as,
The kipgib ut balmin.
We even know what it would take to make the sentence true (France is a monarchy and the king is bald).
This sentence has since become the focal point of discussion in philosophy of language about the nature of propositions, reference, names, and quantifiers and has had implications in other areas such as logic and metaphysics.
This aspect of examples is so important in fact that popular-level writing such as news articles or op-ed pieces open with an example to help connect the reader to the story.
I recently read an article about the implications of America’s new tariffs for Japanese sake companies. The article opens with an interview with a representative from a sake company who regularly does business in the US including a quote about how his company is worried about price increases and the loss of customers.
Immediately, we can see that this discussion is not just about ideas or numbers on a page. The writer humanizes the story by using the names of real companies and people to drive home that the story is real and affecting real people.
Conclusion
As mentioned above, examples play a key role in arguments and writing by explaining our ideas and connecting them to real life. They make the unbelievable believable and the absurd common. Because of both their usefulness and persuasive power, they are a must for any piece of writing or argument.
What's more, we need to pay attention to the examples used in the words of others, checking to see if they do in fact help to clarify and connect or to obscure and gatekeep. For example, philosophers often give examples from classic literature, art, or history. However, these examples often fail to perform the desired function of an example.
This is because the example is so obscure that most people do not know it. For people who are familiar with the works or events, these examples serve their purpose of clarifying. However, for those who do not, or even those who are simply not familiar with that particular work or event, these references can add to the confusion rather than making it easier to understand.
So, the next time you are writing or reading anything, make sure to give examples their due and not just skip over them.