I posted something a few days back to the effect that the purpose of argument is to either convince your opponent of your stand or to understand and accept his. Well, I don’t really believe that since there are other options of compromise as well. One of the main goals of argument, I would think, is to see the other side; comprehend the opposing viewpoint and understand the reasoning behind it. In this major purpose, no one need be right or wrong or change position.
In ethical argument this is particularly so, but in scientific and mathematical argument, proof may more easily be given, at least particularly so in mathematics. There is a need for me to learn the reasoning and logical methods to arrive at conclusions, even if in the end, emotion wins out.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
Standing and applauding your apt description of the “goals of an argument”. Arguments are equal to or greater than enlightenment. And have I told you I enjoy your blog so much? One of my favorite stops.
Emotion clouds good argument, of course, so I am seeking a balance and the peace of knowing not whether I am right or wrong necessarily–although in many cases there is the ultimate need to know–but to view with calmness and understanding the other’s point of view. Sounds great; harder to learn how to do.
Thanks–your’s is an excellent one as well–walked in the woods with you today.
I tend to say, because I like children’s books, that it’s not a question of my argument or yours. It’s a question of sharing the same world.
A big part of my early education revolved around something I think I got from Thoreau: ‘looking through another’s eyes is the greatest miracle of all.’
That’s a wonderful way of putting it; both in the sharing of space and in seeing the space from all angles.