Arguments

 

Subject: Arguments

How do arguments come about. There are ideological arguments, political and religious arguments, trivial and deeply felt arguments, there are a range of jealousy arguments often based on insecurity, there are pecking order arguments often associated with change. An argument therefore is the opposite to an agreement and in the scheme of things is healthy since it would br a weird world if we all agreed on everything.

And yet the concept of universal agreement is attractive in so far arguments are deemed destructive, but are they. Our minds are the minds of individual human beings not that of a composite society and the arguments are about our individuality. The individuality is precious since sometimes it’s an indicator of those who think for themselves and not those who are simply followers.

Never the less arguments do bruise egos, if and when proven wrong whilst at the same time their loss feeds our insecurity. To admit your wrong on something which you would have pledged as part of a core belief, places the rest of your beliefs on shaky ground and since much of what we think we stand for is based in those core beliefs, what we stand for is then also questionable, after all each of us has our own Pandora’s box full of merits we feel invaluable but in reality are a curse.

There are other arguments, the trivial burst of anger, words which fly across the room inflicting pain when non was intended. This anger, often rooted in something else, lashes out without thought and sets in motion a whole cascade of emotion most of which is destructive. This time bomb we carry inside us is often a mixture of resentment about life in general and is always there waiting to go off and trip us up. As soon as the words are out we wish we hadn’t sent them but the antidote, a simple apology seems so difficult because the anger is based on something else which is still there, unattended still lingering like a foul smell.

Given we do harm if an argument becomes too pointed what should we do to foster the habit of good interrogation, healthy interrogation without slipping into lazy ideological tub thumping. The Buddhists have a way of stressing the meaning of every sentence, dismantling it for contradictions, much as Plato did in his famous arguments. If you ask for a definition and then a further definition of each answer it often destroys lazy fundamentalism.  The problem is good dialogue can simply become a rhetorical masterclass, a way of bamboozling people with fine words. A better way is to drill down on what you mean and why. In many cases you will never find a meeting of minds and other than enjoying the good rough and tumble of concept jousting you have to remind yourself not to concern yourself with winning but only happy to take part. To prove  there are people who have other views and therefore should be accommodated for them.