Radical Contrarianism Explained

I very much resist labels, especially when it comes to something as complicated as one's "overarching philosophy." That said, when I have been pressed on the question in the past I have used the term radical contrarian to explain one aspect of my philosophical approach to life. I really have no idea if such a philosophical school currently exists or has existed in the past. It definitely shares many aspects of any number of skeptical philosophies, and may in fact be known by another name among philosophers much more competent and knowledgeable than myself. However, for purposes of this piece I intend to ignore all that and try and describe radical contrarianism in my own words and also explain why I find it such a compelling, but also such a painful and alienating approach to life.

Radical contrarianism is really a social philosophy in that it could not and would not exist in the absence of societies. It addresses how people interact with other people, and how they approach discussions, opinions, ideas, etc. shared by other people in public or with them personally. It is a way of responding to another persons thoughts about substantive issues. In a nutshell radical contrarianism asks us to take the opposite or diametrically opposed viewpoint to any other person on any topic no matter if the contrarian actual supports this opposite position or not. The ONLY reason the RC takes such an opposing viewpoint is for purposes of argumentation. To emphasize I point I just made, the RC does NOT need to believe in the position for which they are arguing, and in fact, they may be totally opposed to it, maybe even find it abhorrent, but they still stake out that position, and argue to the best of their ability in favor of it. Not to start an argument (thought that is often the end result) but rather to force the other person to justify their belief/opinion/position at all times against sustained and withering attack The RC approach has several advantages and one rather large disadvantage.

Advantages of radical contrarianism

It forces others to justify their beliefs/opinions/ideas

The first advantage is the primary motivator for the RC. It forces others to muster their best defense and strongest justifications, and if the RC's arguments are strong enough it may result in the other person recognizing when their opinions are weak or unsupported or incorrect. Sometimes this other person may actually change their original position or at least modify it to some extent.

It forces the RC to constantly re-examine their own beliefs/opinions/ideas

The second advantage is largely unrecognized but it is almost as important. It often forces the RC to re-examine his or her own beliefs. Nothing will cause one to questions one's core beliefs faster than having to muster your strongest arguments against those beliefs in an argument with another person who, actually shares those same core beliefs/opinions as the you (the RC). It is a bit like arguing with yourself with the role of yourself being played by someone else.

Disadvantages of radical contrarianism

Being a dick

Of course what I call radical contrarianism others call being a dick, and it is this confrontational aspect of the philosophy that is the most disheartening to me, and is a major disadvantage. While the intent of RC is very positive, the person who's beliefs are being questioned can easily feel as if they are under attack, and, in a sense, they are. As we all know most people do not respond well to attacks especially when directed against their core beliefs. Therefore, if you intend to adopt the RC philosophy in earnest prepare yourself for many frustrating discussions and at least a few knock down drag out brawls. You may even lose one or more friends. I would argue that those were not true friends, but it hurts nonetheless.

On balance I find the RC approach advantages outweigh the big disadvantage and adopt it to the extent possible. Mostly, I do this with my writings. This has the great advantage of removing that one very large disadvantage. After all, nobody can argue with my writings, at least not to my face, and not very easily. They can cry and moan and complain all they want in the comments, and they often do, but it is no affront to to me personally, and I can ignore them if I want. So, I guess in the end you could say I have taken the cowards way out. A cowardly radical contrarian. I can live with that. lol!