Do we argue for honor or for the truth? I think the purpose of argument is of course for the real face of the thing. One precondition is that the arguers on both sides should have the same or close understanding to the same word. For example, one asks: "Is evolution theory good or bad", the other answers:"We cannot say good or bad on this problem, in some cases it is good but in some other cases it is bad for example it cannot apply to modern human society." See, the misunderstanding is emerging. Probably when the first person say"good", he/she means "close", and the whole question can be interpreted as "Is Darwin's theory of evolution close to the truth?"
It seems that human tends to think and act that they are smarter than others and sometimes this character goes to an extreme point where he/she ignores the understanding of other people to a specific word, for example the one mentioned above intends to understand the word "good" in another way to make them less stupid. The different opinion leads to the different understanding of the word.
Stubborn and showing off actually exposes the narrowness of one's mind. When some one knows very little and doesn't realize this fact, he/she is probably ignorant and judgmental because He/she assumes that what he/she knows is the whole world.
If we try to avoid this self-satisfied feeling, then the only reason for the argument should be to search for the truth. To make the argument proceed ahead and give some novel result, man would better take the conversation when he is cool down and realize the truth should be above all other things to make the right understanding of the language, otherwise don't do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment