I have never met an intellectual and honest person who always agrees with me 100% on every issue. However every issue once fully discussed to both parties satisfaction always ends in complete agreement. (Though this can take years and sometimes the debate on rare occasion doesn't end within a lifetime.) This is because both parties present new information the other hasn't accounted for until both groups have a theory that doesn't contradict any of the information known to either party.
This is because the nature of truth is that it never changes and can not contradict itself. The purpose of a debate is not to persuade people to believe what you do, but rather to allow rational individuals to complement one another's knowledge and abilities for the purpose of better solving a problem. It is in this way we expand our knowledge of reality which can only be accomplished if man is free to think on his own and disagree without violent criticism. (They must also be permitted to test there solutions when they can be tried with voluntary participation and without the threat of force.)
To achieve this we must always be open to the idea that another persons difference in conclusion may have resulted from valuable information we do not yet have. The debate is only called off when someone presents a contradiction that when called out is unwilling to correct or account for it. It is at this moment we realize this person is not yet ready to think rationally and must be left to there own devices till such a time that reality forces them to face there own contradictions.
To try and force them to be rational by our own judgment would be an indirect admittance that allowing reality to function would not be enough to prove our rationality correct. Put differently, it is a subconsciousness admittance that ones belief is neither rational nor objective, but rather a stubborn attempt to avoid the responsibility to seek the truth. It is to admit one does not genuinely seek or desire truth but rather seeks an escape from it!
To try and force them to be rational by our own judgment would be an indirect admittance that allowing reality to function would not be enough to prove our rationality correct. Put differently, it is a subconsciousness admittance that ones belief is neither rational nor objective, but rather a stubborn attempt to avoid the responsibility to seek the truth. It is to admit one does not genuinely seek or desire truth but rather seeks an escape from it!
No comments:
Post a Comment