Today, let's talk about arguing.
We're taking it from the top. Two people, or camps, or parties, disagree. Belief in a higher power, your right to own a gun, the best Avenger, doesn't matter. Just pick a side.
I've got good news and I've got bad news, and I've even made it easy on you and rolled them into one package: You're both already wrong.
"But Sam," you say, because the only thing you enjoy more than an argument is a meta-argument, and also because you're woefully confused as to how the communication of the written word works, "how can that be? I haven't even said anything!"
Unless you excel at interpretive dance, presumably you were about to, and therein lies the problem.
Firstly, you're almost certainly not arguing something unless it means something to you. If it doesn't, you're in what's called debate club, and I'll get to you in a minute. But the fundamental assumption here lies in the idea that you are attached to the point that you're making. It holds value to you because you've built your sense of self around it--perhaps in a big way, as in your belief in a higher power, or perhaps in a significantly smaller one, as in your conviction that Thor is the shit. The former dictates the way you carry out your life, while the latter is just a point of personal pride and opinion. The point is that it's something that you've arrived at through your own thought process and reasoning, and so it's a part of you. You know God is watching out for you, you know that guns should be banned, and goddammit, you know that Thor could kick the Hulk's ass up and down Sakaar.
When you put those parts of yourself out into the world, they will invariably conflict with fundamental parts of other people. This devout atheist knows that belief in the invisible man in the sky turns people into assholes, and she knows that a society without guns is vulnerable to itself, and she knows that hammers and lightning can't do shit to the Hulk because he's the Hulk. She doesn't think these things, mind you, she knows them, same as you know yours.
So naturally, they meet at the baseball diamond in the park at midnight, wearing all black, with Ka-BAR knives and throw down to defend their points.
No, of course they don't. They argue about it. We're civilized human beings and therefore we use our words.
Stop here for a moment, though. Consider two things:
Good, because the second point is that everything in the preceding paragraph is, to paraphrase the late, great George Carlin, stunningly full of shit. Not the tenets of it, but the fallacy wrapped around the method of delivery: the false dichotomy presented in that proposition is the fundamental flaw of the entire institution of argumentation--the conviction that it's either A or it's B. Let's take the religion argument.
The argument is this: Pick one option:
Well shit, let's check a dictionary. Merriam-Webster offers this:
But there isn't exactly room for that, because we've generalized ourselves into our comfortable shell. We're not about to accept the nuances of the other person's argument because we're under attack.
It's not about whether or not God exists, it's about the fact that this motherfucker just denied you your right to perceive reality. If his point stands, it means that you got something wrong about reality. And even worse, you did it a very long time ago and you've since built a whole lot of very important things around it.
So it's not about whether or not God exists, it's about preserving your confidence in your ability to judge the world around you--and by extension, preserving reality. And most of us aren't willing to compromise that for the sake of truth. I'd like to be, but I'm not confident in saying that I can concede when my core foundation is challenged.
Thus the arguments become polarized. There's no middle ground because no matter what they're arguing about, be it God or guns or Mjolnir, it really doesn't have a damn thing to do with the many fascinating, humbling, transcendent possibilities that these two beautiful human beings can explore together by way of these subjects. In allowing the inflexible ego to run the show, there are only two ways this argument can go: "I'm right", or "I'm wrong". And considering the stakes, there's actually only one way this argument can go: "I'm right".
The entire institution of arguing isn't based on whatever it is you're arguing about, it's based on being right. And being right is inherently subjective. So by association, the entire idea of having an argument is to make somebody else think the way you're thinking.
But if we're all out to flip the other guy to our point of view, just who the hell is supposed to change their mind?
That's right: nobody. Precisely nobody walks into an argument saying "I wonder what I'll learn today?" so much as "This guy is a fucking idiot." or some less severe derivation if it's a friendly sort of thing. We don't argue anything--not the existence of God, not Hulk vs. Thor--without going for the win.
Well I'm tired of that shit. I'm not claiming to have transcended the ego or anything bitchin' like that. I'm just thoroughly exhausted with passive-aggressive competition and defensive trumping disguised as "civil discourse". People, unless you're arguing for the sake of argument, there is nothing civil about it. We are, as sure as jabbing one another with pointed sticks, attempting to damage the other to save ourselves. Just so happens we're doing it in the mind instead of in the middle of Thunderdome.
I can't think of any alternative except relaxing. Do your best to forget the circumstances. Forget about the past and the future, and just focus on what's going on right now. You've been right before and you've been wrong before; you will be both again. So in the meantime, forget about what you know and focus on what you feel. You might just surprise yourself.
Well, that was clearly on my mind. Thanks for sticking through that pseudo-transcendental head vomit. In other news, I'm back in Beograd, my birthday is tomorrow, and I'm going home in a week. It's the final countdown, kids, so stick around and see what's in store.
We're taking it from the top. Two people, or camps, or parties, disagree. Belief in a higher power, your right to own a gun, the best Avenger, doesn't matter. Just pick a side.
I've got good news and I've got bad news, and I've even made it easy on you and rolled them into one package: You're both already wrong.
"But Sam," you say, because the only thing you enjoy more than an argument is a meta-argument, and also because you're woefully confused as to how the communication of the written word works, "how can that be? I haven't even said anything!"
Unless you excel at interpretive dance, presumably you were about to, and therein lies the problem.
Firstly, you're almost certainly not arguing something unless it means something to you. If it doesn't, you're in what's called debate club, and I'll get to you in a minute. But the fundamental assumption here lies in the idea that you are attached to the point that you're making. It holds value to you because you've built your sense of self around it--perhaps in a big way, as in your belief in a higher power, or perhaps in a significantly smaller one, as in your conviction that Thor is the shit. The former dictates the way you carry out your life, while the latter is just a point of personal pride and opinion. The point is that it's something that you've arrived at through your own thought process and reasoning, and so it's a part of you. You know God is watching out for you, you know that guns should be banned, and goddammit, you know that Thor could kick the Hulk's ass up and down Sakaar.
When you put those parts of yourself out into the world, they will invariably conflict with fundamental parts of other people. This devout atheist knows that belief in the invisible man in the sky turns people into assholes, and she knows that a society without guns is vulnerable to itself, and she knows that hammers and lightning can't do shit to the Hulk because he's the Hulk. She doesn't think these things, mind you, she knows them, same as you know yours.
So naturally, they meet at the baseball diamond in the park at midnight, wearing all black, with Ka-BAR knives and throw down to defend their points.
No, of course they don't. They argue about it. We're civilized human beings and therefore we use our words.
Stop here for a moment, though. Consider two things:
- Are you honestly prepared to change your mind based on the outcome of this argument?
- Would you express yourself in the same fashion if nobody challenged you?
Good, because the second point is that everything in the preceding paragraph is, to paraphrase the late, great George Carlin, stunningly full of shit. Not the tenets of it, but the fallacy wrapped around the method of delivery: the false dichotomy presented in that proposition is the fundamental flaw of the entire institution of argumentation--the conviction that it's either A or it's B. Let's take the religion argument.
The argument is this: Pick one option:
- God exists.
- God doesn't exist.
Well shit, let's check a dictionary. Merriam-Webster offers this:
- The supreme or ultimate reality: as
- The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
- Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
- A being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
- A person or thing of supreme value.
- A powerful ruler.
- I believe in God (acceptance of God as per definition 1.2)
- I do not believe in God (rejection of God as per definition 1.2)
- Nothing of any value exists. (Rejection of the idea of God as per def. 3)
- God is existence (Acceptance of God as per def. 3)
- I value divine-right monarchy (Belief in God as per def. 4)
- I don't believe in ghosts (Rejection of the idea of God as per def. 2)
- I believe in the sanctity of my own body (Belief in God as per def. 3)
- I believe in the Norse pantheon (Belief in God as per def.s 1 or 2)
- I don't believe in your basic human rights (Rejection of God as per def. 3)
- I worship Josip Broz Tito (Belief in God as per def. 4)
 |
| Pictured: Poor guy never saw it coming. |
It's not about whether or not God exists, it's about the fact that this motherfucker just denied you your right to perceive reality. If his point stands, it means that you got something wrong about reality. And even worse, you did it a very long time ago and you've since built a whole lot of very important things around it.
So it's not about whether or not God exists, it's about preserving your confidence in your ability to judge the world around you--and by extension, preserving reality. And most of us aren't willing to compromise that for the sake of truth. I'd like to be, but I'm not confident in saying that I can concede when my core foundation is challenged.
Thus the arguments become polarized. There's no middle ground because no matter what they're arguing about, be it God or guns or Mjolnir, it really doesn't have a damn thing to do with the many fascinating, humbling, transcendent possibilities that these two beautiful human beings can explore together by way of these subjects. In allowing the inflexible ego to run the show, there are only two ways this argument can go: "I'm right", or "I'm wrong". And considering the stakes, there's actually only one way this argument can go: "I'm right".
The entire institution of arguing isn't based on whatever it is you're arguing about, it's based on being right. And being right is inherently subjective. So by association, the entire idea of having an argument is to make somebody else think the way you're thinking.
But if we're all out to flip the other guy to our point of view, just who the hell is supposed to change their mind?
That's right: nobody. Precisely nobody walks into an argument saying "I wonder what I'll learn today?" so much as "This guy is a fucking idiot." or some less severe derivation if it's a friendly sort of thing. We don't argue anything--not the existence of God, not Hulk vs. Thor--without going for the win.
Well I'm tired of that shit. I'm not claiming to have transcended the ego or anything bitchin' like that. I'm just thoroughly exhausted with passive-aggressive competition and defensive trumping disguised as "civil discourse". People, unless you're arguing for the sake of argument, there is nothing civil about it. We are, as sure as jabbing one another with pointed sticks, attempting to damage the other to save ourselves. Just so happens we're doing it in the mind instead of in the middle of Thunderdome.
I can't think of any alternative except relaxing. Do your best to forget the circumstances. Forget about the past and the future, and just focus on what's going on right now. You've been right before and you've been wrong before; you will be both again. So in the meantime, forget about what you know and focus on what you feel. You might just surprise yourself.
Well, that was clearly on my mind. Thanks for sticking through that pseudo-transcendental head vomit. In other news, I'm back in Beograd, my birthday is tomorrow, and I'm going home in a week. It's the final countdown, kids, so stick around and see what's in store.
No comments:
Post a Comment