.jpg)
I am an argument.
I arise when brains, by means of words or actions, attempt to convince each other that a given set of thoughts each brain had, are, in fact, the Most True Thoughts to Have.
Convergent thought-sets connect brains. Divergent thought-sets divide them.
The Truth only matters to some brains sometimes and is only relevant to me, the argument, when enough thought-sets converge upon me. When this happens, I, the argument cease to exist.
So, this implies, that an argument, like me, that wants to keep existing must do the following:
Keep the movement of words and actions consistent and ongoing.
Ensure that the fewest possible brains develop thought-sets that converge upon (and thereby connect those brains to) the truth. If it remains irrelevant, any argument can survive.
Should the movement of words and actions cease, I need is a brain with two functional hemispheres to hide in. It's not fun or ideal, but a brain that is arguing with itself is life support enough for even the most obscure and unhealthy arguments. In such situations, the irrelevance of the Truth is essential to the argument's survival.
It is also important to understand that until I point out the fact that simply declaring an argument to exist does not indeed make it so until, at the very least, one half-brain has attempted to deny its existence. And so I am an argument only if there are at least two sides. Even if it's only one brain.
An argument that says it only has one side is lying to you - it's only half an argument, trying to bluff it's way to dialectic glory.
And finally, the truth only ends an argument when the brains involved converge upon it.
Which, when you think about it, makes this argument kinda easy to kill.
Peace, Love and a Little Madness
Nomad.
You may not make many posts, but if they are all this good, then I suppose quality trumps quantity. :)
Mr Wizard... you flatter me :) I'm hoping to post more and more often... I just have to work around the idiosyncrasies of my life here in S.A.
But I will always favor quality over quantity when it comes to words and stories (and woodworking tools).
Of course, the other thing about arguments is that they can only exist where there is a mindset that any situation — by definition — must have "winners" and "losers." If we simply brush winning/losing aside and look for solutions, the argument tends to die.
Very interesting and thoughtful post. Found you via @clayboyn.
You speak truth, Mr Denmarkguy... :) I would add though, that when folks decide that their solution is the only viable one, the argument pulls a phoenix and flares again. I guess that's why problems are solved and arguments resolved (teehee).
Found this a little bit too late, yet being one of the best posts this month
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Clayboyn from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
This post has been selected for curation by @msp-curation by @clayboyn and has been upvoted and will be featured in the weekly philosophy curation post. It will also be considered for the official @minnowsupport curation post and if selected will be resteemed from the main account. Feel free to join us on Discord!
This post has been resteemed from MSP3K courtesy of @clayboyn from the Minnow Support Project ( @minnowsupport ).
Bots Information:
Join the P.A.L. Discord | Check out MSPSteem | Listen to MSP-Waves
I like it! Quite true indeed!
This is the problem with analytical minds. You overthink situations and replay past situations in your mind. Very rare things are clear cut and we often make tasks harder than they are.
Posted using Partiko Android
Duuude, I like this way of describing an argument - from 1st person point of view. Like all living things, it wants to survive and thrive :)
This somewhat reminds me of Daniel Dannett's talk about how ideas are comparable to "mind parasites" (from a biological perspective) the way they root themselves in our mind, and dictate behavior...
Thanks @clayboyn for curating this post!
A nice sounding phrase, an interesting idea, presented in that graphic (though not really connected to the blog):
But that's a specious rendering of the justification for war in the name of peace. It properly goes like this: We go to war to protect our peaceful way of life.
Playing with words, with words I play. To say several things, several things, I say. Now should you see, there was more that was said. That is to say, I said "The truth of war, though... Is that peace is forgotten without it". Read the whole thing before presuming to know what I meant. And since the piece is about arguments and truth, perhaps it's not so unconnected... Yes?
Connected like an individual human being and the human species
Sure. If you like.
Also, thanks for some fun and thought provoking comments. I've enjoyed the challenges you present.
Argument is the lifeblood of politics and intellectual discourse. You really do speak madness! Both cases in an argument need to be made b/c they are foils to one another. IF one or the other is not wholly true then together they push understanding toward a more whole picture of the truth.
Yes... And once the truth is found, there is no argument anymore.
And how totalitarian is truth and authoritarian is logic!
I would add to what I commented, to say that there can be no one truth in politics (except for truth in the sense of authenticity) b/c everyone's opinion is his own 'truth' and opinions are neither true nor false. That is why politics is an endless struggle, and why arguments can never be laid to rest, whilse people have their own minds.
Sure... I see where you're coming from. Your perspective is valid from your perspective.
But consider this: The 'endless' arguments of politics only exist because the politics we engage in require consensus to function effectively - that is to say, in politics progress on any given issue is only achieved when enough people agree to progress the issue in the agreed direction. This makes disagreement a potential tactic to influence the direction of Congressional consensual progression. The argument ends when people say it ends, and can be revived when people say otherwise. Now, try arguing with Gravity. Or Light. We can only argue with people, because only people can choose to deny a truth. So, again, truth ends arguments. If the argument is ongoing , there may be a deception present. If there is no deception, then there is more to uncover and the understanding of what is believed to be true is incomplete. Denial of objective reality is fun to imagine, but objective truths are not only self-evident, but undeniable. You can disagree. Go ahead. You would be proving me right.
Disagreeing wouldn't prove you right, but myself.
I'm curious about your reasoning on that point. In what way would you be right by disagreeing? You realize that for as long as we disagree, the argument continues? If we come to an agreement, the argument ends (dies)... My point throughout this delightful debate has been that objective truths end arguments when the minds behind the arguments converge upon them. Secondary to that is the idea that once a truth becomes self-evident, denying said truth is... well.. a bit silly. The thing about the truth is that it doesn't cease to be true just because someone claims it false. The someone is engaging in deception. Now while this perpetuates the argument, it does not make the truth less true. What it does do, is make fools of those who believe the lie.
Now, think for a minute... Actually think about this... For something to be true in the truest sense of the truth, it has to be true regardless of perspective. If something claiming to be true is only true given a certain perspective, then it is not really true, is it? So if you're going to come at me with claims of "everyone's opinion is his own 'truth' and opinions are neither true nor false", then we will reach an impasse, because one of us is fiddling with the definition of truth in order to claim that something other than truth is indeed true.
The astute observer will have noted the many and varied word games present throughout the post and these comments. I have used the word truth so much now, that the word seems almost meaningless... However, does that change the nature of objective truth? Not in the slightest. Because the truth is the truth, no matter how it presents itself.
Final point before I go do something more useful with my time - I do not need to convince you of the truth. In fact, you are free to deny or accept any view you wish. It is not my goal to persuade you. My goal has simply been to respond, as thoughtfully as I can. I am not the arbiter or decider of anything other than my own thoughts. That much, I think we can agree on. However, I do not claim any of my thoughts or opinions to be true. My claim, is that truth should be, by definition, self-evident - which means that no matter your perspective, the truth is true. The best example I can give of what I mean is this: Every human on Earth knows what the Sun is - it's the big bright thing in the sky. That it exists is true. That it burns skin that it shines on for too long is true. There are many things we don't know about the Sun, and there are many opinions we can have about it. Those opinions cannot be called true, until some method is devised to demonstrate to other minds that any given opinion is true or false. When an opinion is proven true, the truth of the opinion must be self-evident for the proof to be called proof. When this is the case, we have ourselves an objective truth that ends all debate on that particular opinion. Do you understand? This is what I mean in my post about the truth ending arguments. It is not totalitarian or authoritarian, it simply is. Another example, this time political - lets say Emperor X declares that he is God... He may be able to convince a significant number of people that he is indeed a deity, and those people may wholeheartedly believe this to be the case. Others may not. Can any of the claims from the Emperor, the Believers or the Infidels be considered truly true? No. There is a deception present. When the Emperor (inevitably) dies, all the Believers must now defend their deity against the claims from the Infidels that gods are supposed to be immortal. The Believers may come up with very fanciful explanations that may even convert a few Infidels, but since the truth of the Emperor's godhood can never be demonstrated, from an objective standpoint, we must concede that the only true thing we can say about the whole situation is that Emperor X claimed he was God, and a bunch of his subjects believed him. This would be true, regardless of opinion, because, once-again, it is self-evident.
So, with all that in mind, do you still believe "everyone's opinion is his own 'truth' and opinions are neither true nor false"? If so, prove it. You can't, because it's not true.
The proof is no two men experience the same thing the same way and think the same about it. Our civilization is built on the enshrinement of plurality in the political community. You shouldn't not understand this. Though it is a good exercise to reaffirm principles by argument.
You're talking about factual truth, objective reality. There can only be one factual truth. It is stupid to deny since reality confronts us with its truth whether we will it or not (hence why it inherently is totalitarian, logic being authoritarian), and that renders this truth scientifically discoverable, after which it can be established as fact.
But we can also speak of metaphysical truths, e.g. values, beliefs, religions. Factual opinion is really only presumption and conjecture about reality. Opinion properly speaking is perspectival. Thus it can only be called false if spoken dishonestly, and then it is not the opinion which is false but the person expressing it.
Very nice :)
Thanks :)