it is highly unfortunate that most of us engage in arguments more than we speak. i am not saying that arguing is necessarily wrong or anything like that, there is a place for it. however, i think you can have two approaches to arguing. one correct, the other, grossly flawed.
the first is simple enough and that you are arguing for the sake of discovering the truth. here arguing becomes an ongoing dialogue between individuals with the purpose of coming into agreement. this is highly beneficial where we find that truth is discovered in relationship and understanding one another so much so that union is solidified by our argument. even to disagree on understanding the truth is not wrong, it is just another evidence that our differences bring us together.
however, the arguing that i struggle with and i am not always careful about is the kind of arguing that you assume you are a better person than who you are arguing. this is relative to the thoughts of arguing not believing the other person has anything to say or add. it basically demoralizes them by removing their personhood and leaves them standing there as an bleeding animal denigrated and maimed by your narcissistic dagger. how dare one enter into argument with the presupposition that they are right and everyone else is wrong. what kind of relationship does this facilitate? it seems that it merely assumes that the argument is all about the propagation of yourself and your ideals, rather than trying to see other's ideas as valuable.
basically we either are acting like a god by being so staid on our perspectives or we are conversing with others to come to a way to live life that would be better, more fulfilling, or more beneficial to everyone else.
i hope to learn how to argue without demi-god attitude. i desire it intensely.
-peaks out.
No comments:
Post a Comment