I hate arguments ... or, more accurately, I dislike the predominant idea of arguments in today's world.
This overwhelming idea (particularly in American culture) that one person must win, must come out on top - and usually resulting in the loser being shamed and rubbed into the dirt, usually just for kicks.
Nowhere is this more evident than in politics, where it's covered up in layer upon grungy layer of dripping politeness and the pretense of knowing the truth of what you're fighting for.
Most people who know me know that I much prefer to discuss things.
It's such an alien idea in the social scene, sometimes. The small group - maybe just two people - of friends that get together, and discuss the world around them like it's a book ... they have the right idea. The idea borne out in any successful book club is that of discussion.
Perhaps you've been there. You see the respect each person tends to have for another in a discussion. The open mind in each person that exists ONLY because everyone has few, if any, presumptions, and understands that maybe they're not seeing the whole picture, or if they are, they're looking at it in their own way, and maybe someone else's viewpoint could be beneficial.
Cut to the political scene - criticisms out the wazoo; statements and promises, often without conclusive backing; a gladiator fight of nothing but words, designed for one thing and one thing only: Please believe me more than that person over there.
Every person I've met has been open to some degree of discussion, limited by that person's bias. This is, of course, a two-way street - but, contrary to many individuals I've encountered, I try to be well aware of my own biases, so that I can account for them. Suffice it to say that the worst offenders were, more often than not, Christians.
Then there's the Internet, where, shielded by a wall of anonymity (or in the case of Facebook, physical distance), people drop their façade of social conduct in order to project an image of wisdom and objective truth. Or to troll, which deserves its own level of hell when it's uncalled for.
I was imagining some great discourse when Miguel suggested this topic, but sadly it faded away as I thought about it, leaving a simple, but pointed, observation:
Discussion - or, as Miguel would have me describe it, dialectic - is the cornerstone that underlies the modern world. The free sharing of information between parties who are open to correction of their misinformation is what Wikipedia exists for, and why it is the greatest repository of information that may ever exist (barring the libraries of the ancients).
Assuming you bothered to read into the hyperlinks in the previous paragraph, you are now aware of how your own subconscious can blind you from the truths of others. It is these discontinuities in our perceptions that are exercised in a traditional argument, or debate, and may never be resolved in that mode because we remain so staunchly committed to our cause.
(On a related note: the patent system, with its noble roots of giving credit where credit is due, has devolved into little more than a money-grabber and killer of innovation; one need only look at Apple and its contemporaries to understand why. Why do I bring this up? Think about my words on the freedom of information.)
As always, a simple solution is most effective, i.e. keep an open mind, and beware the biases that blind you.
This overwhelming idea (particularly in American culture) that one person must win, must come out on top - and usually resulting in the loser being shamed and rubbed into the dirt, usually just for kicks.
Nowhere is this more evident than in politics, where it's covered up in layer upon grungy layer of dripping politeness and the pretense of knowing the truth of what you're fighting for.
Most people who know me know that I much prefer to discuss things.
It's such an alien idea in the social scene, sometimes. The small group - maybe just two people - of friends that get together, and discuss the world around them like it's a book ... they have the right idea. The idea borne out in any successful book club is that of discussion.
Perhaps you've been there. You see the respect each person tends to have for another in a discussion. The open mind in each person that exists ONLY because everyone has few, if any, presumptions, and understands that maybe they're not seeing the whole picture, or if they are, they're looking at it in their own way, and maybe someone else's viewpoint could be beneficial.
Cut to the political scene - criticisms out the wazoo; statements and promises, often without conclusive backing; a gladiator fight of nothing but words, designed for one thing and one thing only: Please believe me more than that person over there.
Every person I've met has been open to some degree of discussion, limited by that person's bias. This is, of course, a two-way street - but, contrary to many individuals I've encountered, I try to be well aware of my own biases, so that I can account for them. Suffice it to say that the worst offenders were, more often than not, Christians.
Then there's the Internet, where, shielded by a wall of anonymity (or in the case of Facebook, physical distance), people drop their façade of social conduct in order to project an image of wisdom and objective truth. Or to troll, which deserves its own level of hell when it's uncalled for.
I was imagining some great discourse when Miguel suggested this topic, but sadly it faded away as I thought about it, leaving a simple, but pointed, observation:
Discussion - or, as Miguel would have me describe it, dialectic - is the cornerstone that underlies the modern world. The free sharing of information between parties who are open to correction of their misinformation is what Wikipedia exists for, and why it is the greatest repository of information that may ever exist (barring the libraries of the ancients).
Assuming you bothered to read into the hyperlinks in the previous paragraph, you are now aware of how your own subconscious can blind you from the truths of others. It is these discontinuities in our perceptions that are exercised in a traditional argument, or debate, and may never be resolved in that mode because we remain so staunchly committed to our cause.
(On a related note: the patent system, with its noble roots of giving credit where credit is due, has devolved into little more than a money-grabber and killer of innovation; one need only look at Apple and its contemporaries to understand why. Why do I bring this up? Think about my words on the freedom of information.)
As always, a simple solution is most effective, i.e. keep an open mind, and beware the biases that blind you.
