This might sound like a philosophical treatise - but it's not
Arguments and the limits of our knowledge:
I have found in many discussions here at JU recently, that my knowledge of a great many subjects is let’s say…deficient or wanting.
I never used to believe that argument is good for its own sake, or for the benefit of logic and its exercise.
I never used to believe that argument is necessary to call into action the faculties of the human mind that are not stimulated by the operation of the microwave or the contorted complexities of using a remote control.
I never used to believe that argument could lead us to mutual understanding and a higher vantage point from which we could view our multifarious existence and judge if it had come to any good. Judge if it had pleased us as well as any God that might reside above, below or to the right hand side of us.
I used to believe in argument for the simple, infantile pleasure of winning. It is a strange thing to think back on now considering that I never won all that often.
“Let’s agree to disagree”; “Fine. GO SCREW YOURSELF”; “No, I don’t agree with you and I’m going home. Don’t call me”; “Marco. Please leave the room. You’re making the other children very upset”
I have heard all of the above at a consistent and unrelenting rate. What you never hear is, “Very good old chap. A remarkable performance and I tip my hat to you, Oh master of rhetoric, 15 – Nil, your way.”
JU has taught me a lesson of great value, something that exceeds the petty currency of gifts wrapped in paper and ribbon. I have finally understood one of the quantum principles of the universe - You can never argue to win. Persuade perhaps. Assuage, more often. Just never to win. To win is to have one more enemy than you had at the beginning. An enemy, even one, is not something that I desire or value.
So what has the past time of argument morphed into, what has it given me now that it failed to previously?
It makes me aware of the limits of my own knowledge, the limits of what I think I know and my naiveté when it comes to judging what it is that others know.
People here on JU have surprised and delighted me on so many occasions. I almost jump out of my chair thinking with joy that someone actually committed the time to committing that fact to memory – and then making sense of it, making it real and relevant.
It’s the difference between playing chess with a computer and then playing against a human opponent. Sometimes it’s not the game you are playing; it’s the person you play with and the conversation that come accompanied with them. Chess has limits (and I know many will disagree with me on this point), but people do not.
Argument has shown me how to find joy in humanity again. That apathy has a long way to go if it wants to vanquish our spirit.
In arguing about what is wrong with this world, we just might find something right with it.