I was at a memorial service recently. At one point, people stood up and shared memories and experiences with the dearly departed. Something clicked in my mind. This isn't right. Something very confusing and uncomfortable is happening.
People were just saying things. They were sharing thoughts and memories, but they were without focus. They were without a "point". The eulogy had a point; he was good and loving and sweet-natured and we can all learn a great deal from his example. The sermon had a point; death is sad, but it is a part of life and God still loves all of us.
And slowly, I realized that I am an arguer. That is not to say that I am a controversy-monger. I'm merely one who, when he speaks, has a point and supports that point with his words. Every facet of my life is argument. As a scientist, I must argue against faith (believing without proof) and for evidence to understand. As a philosopher, I do the same thing I do as a scientist, trying to understand why things are the way they are. As an essayist or an academic writer, I write entire papers devoted to arguing a single point. As a logician, my very belief system is that anything that is correct can be argued to be proven correct.
Judging from my experience at the memorial, I am led to the theory that an arguer can't not argue. We are trained to observe and understand. Then we explain to others rationally why we have our beliefs (generally also saying that you should have the same beliefs). Any other use of words (aside from art) seems as strange as walking on your hands, or using math equations as a salutation.
Nevertheless, I am curious to learn more about talking without arguing. (sounds like a good book title)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Logic scares me.
ReplyDeleteAs a computer science major, I'm all about logic. The scary thing is I see so many other people in my field who just don't think.
Sure, they can code. Hell any monkey can do that.
The problem with "arguing something correct" is that you can fall into a trap of arguing something correctly, but one that wouldn't still be right. Although I can't really come up with an example of this, the term "fine sounding argument" comes to mind. Also, logical fallacies that might not be caught by an untrained eye.
Of course, proper logic should fix this.
I think the amazing thing about the human race (and indeed, animals in general) is the capability to think logically.
I honestly think a class on logical thought should be taught aside from pushing people into a computer science class or two (which also forces logical thinking), one that's designed to grab at truth instead of just making shit up that sounds cool. But then again logical processes are also somewhat subjective.