On the side of reason
=================
Many a times, you are asked this question - 'Which side do you belong to?'. May be not explicitly, but definitely implicitly. May be not by your peers but definitely your mind does it. The range of topics on which you have to take sides is bewildering. Never mind if your football knowledge is only as good as that of my moms', you need to take sides when it comes to whether Rooneys sending off is correct or not. Never mind if you you are no expert in higher education management and politics, you need to take sides on the reservation issue. Never mind if you are no Sun Tzu in war strategies, you need to take sides in the war against terror.
This taking sides thing, is more of an internal urge than peer pressure. Peer pressure can always be shrugged off but this internal urge to judge and take sides is not so easy to shrug off. I guess, it is a basic human instinct to judge and take sides. Atleast, to enable one to debate about it with peers. Obviously, judging a situation is absolutely necessary but the way we take sides this days and argue about it leaves a lot to be desired.
Most often than not, a debate is a contest to decide who is better at gabbing. People seldom argue on the strength of their convictions. Instead, they argue on the strength on their abilities to keep gabbing. Of course there are glorious exceptions, but exceptions are not examples. So, such debates rapidly degenerate into a contest of one upmanship and it starts resembling a court room where the aim is to proove that the other person is wrong and not to proove that you are right. I've seen this sometimes even with some of my best friends whom I consider to be amongst the best debaters and who make a conscious attempt to argue on the strength of their convictions. With the not so talented debaters, their debating will degenerate further from that of a court room to that of the parliament where it doesnt matter whether the other party is listening or not, you simply shout whatever you want to. This leads us nowhere. Such a debate is an absolute waste of time.
THE AIM OF AN ARGUMENT SHOULD BE PROGRESS. Only then, is there any point in arguing about something. There is absolutely no non-trivial issue where one side is 100% correct and the other side is 100% wrong. So, if we argue on the strength of our conviction and with ovreall progress in mind, our eyes will open to new perspectives that we have not thought about. This will eventually lead the arguing parties to understand why the other person is saying what he is saying. This will undoubtedly result in progress. If this happens, people will agree to some extent that there can be no generalized solution possible for most non-trivial issues. As a result of this, people will take a holistic look at any situation, think about pros and cons from all perspectives and take a decision on a case by case basis. It might not be practically feasible to take a decision on a case by case basis in some situations. Even in such cases, thinking from all perspectives will definitely help. This will eventually lead us to being on the side of reason and will enable us to take the middle path. Instead, if we were to blind our eyes to the most justified arguments of the other person and simply keep repeating our points, no matter how justified, we can neither claim to be on the side of reason nor can we take the middle path. Following the middle path is absolutely vital for the just and fair handling of any situation and this virtue has been extolled by many a saint. Thirumoolar quotes the following in this magnum opus Thirumandiram
Nadunin raarkuandri gyaanamum illai - Persons other than those who follow the middle path do not possess great wisdom
Nadunin raarkunaragamum illai - Hell will never befall persons who follow the middle path
Nadunin raarnalla thevarum aavar - Persons who follow the middle path will become gods
Nadunin raarvazhi naanum ninrene - I too follow the path of people who follow the middle path
Nadunin raarsilar gyanigal aavar - Persons who follow the middle path become great sages
Nadunin raarsilar thevarum aavar - Persons who follow the middle path will become gods
Nadunin raarsilar nambanum aavar - Persons who follow the middle path will make great friends (Doubtful translation)
Nadunin raarodu naanum ninrene - I too stand alonside those who follow the middle path
(DISCLAIMER: I am no expert in tamil and these translations might be wrong from an academic perspective but the spirit of the verses in Tamil have been captured correctly in the translation to the best of my knowledge)
Lets consider the debate on reservation as a small example.
a1.) Says the anti-reservationist... Why should ones birth tilt the odds in favour or against a person? Why should I be denied a chance to study in a college I want to even when I have more brains that the one who actually gets the seat?
a2.) Says the pro-reservationist... Why is it that the majority of the top posts in India are occupied only by the upper caste people? Why is that you dont find any upper caste people cleaning sewages and sweeping the streets? The odds are terribly in favour of the upper caste and reservation only slightly corrects it.
b1.) Says the anti-reservationist... We have been having reservation for the past 50 years and if there is no significant improvement in the status of the so called lower castes, what is the proof that it will improve the situation now?
b2.) Says the pro-reservationist... Yes, it has improved to some extent. The only reason why you see many SC/ST IAS/IPS officers these days is due to the helping hand of reservation.
c1.) Says the anti-reservationist... But what happens to merit? Why should an intelligent boy suffer for no reason of his?
c2.) Says the pro-reservationist... What makes you think people from lower castes are less intelligent? It is precisely this opinion of people like you that has resulted in the social ostracization of huge sections of the society.
d1.) Says the anti-reservationist... Look at the western nations. They too have inequalities. They tackle it at the level of the primary education. Dont get belied by the statements of these politicians. They are not trying to help you be reserving seats for you. They are simply trying to divide and rule.
d2.) Says the pro-reservationist... No. Though the politicans are in general bastards, this is the only time in the history of India where they are trying to do the correct thing. Dont even dare to belie this.
and the debate continues with no end in sight. Each one simply rephrases the same point in different words and keeps on shouting without actually trying to make sense of what the other person says. This will only lead to total chaos and absolutely no progress will be possible.
Another great problem with arguing is that of context. When a person A says something, there is a HUGE amount of unstated contextual information behind this. Unless one really makes a sincere effort to understand that, we can never get, forget the exact meaning, even the approximate meaning of what was said. If we do not get a clear understanding of what the other person says then there is absolutely no point in replying to him. Its like two people A and B arguing where the only language A knows is Sanskrit and the only language B knows is Latin. There is absolutely no point in continuing with such an excercise. In the debates that I have seen so far, I've almost never found a case where two debaters genuinely try to understand each others context. So, to make alteast some progress in any non-trivial argument, the two guys involved in it should be prepared for the long haul. They need to argue patiently, genuinely and with progress in mind. If this happens, the two guys concerned can understand each others' concerns and will be able to decide the right path towards progress.
I've personally NEVER been a great debater myself. Main reasons would be the lack of sufficient fluency in spoken english, inability to keep gabbing at will and an inconscious mind that always tries to take the middle path. So, when I argue, if my opponent says a valid point in his support and if it is something that I have not thought about, I go back to my drawing table to think again about my ideas and thoughts. As a result, Ill stop talking and that kills the debate. I've been doing this unconsciously for a long time and have started to do this consciously off late, even at the risk of being projected as indecisive. I do believe that taking the middle path in this fashion, even at the risk of being labelled indecisive, is always the right thing to do and hope against hope that atleast a few amongst the powers that be also think along similar lines. Also, can we, the general public, ingrain this ability of taking the middle path into our daily activities. If atleast a small minority succeed in doing it, the quality of our society will increase manifold.
=================
Many a times, you are asked this question - 'Which side do you belong to?'. May be not explicitly, but definitely implicitly. May be not by your peers but definitely your mind does it. The range of topics on which you have to take sides is bewildering. Never mind if your football knowledge is only as good as that of my moms', you need to take sides when it comes to whether Rooneys sending off is correct or not. Never mind if you you are no expert in higher education management and politics, you need to take sides on the reservation issue. Never mind if you are no Sun Tzu in war strategies, you need to take sides in the war against terror.
This taking sides thing, is more of an internal urge than peer pressure. Peer pressure can always be shrugged off but this internal urge to judge and take sides is not so easy to shrug off. I guess, it is a basic human instinct to judge and take sides. Atleast, to enable one to debate about it with peers. Obviously, judging a situation is absolutely necessary but the way we take sides this days and argue about it leaves a lot to be desired.
Most often than not, a debate is a contest to decide who is better at gabbing. People seldom argue on the strength of their convictions. Instead, they argue on the strength on their abilities to keep gabbing. Of course there are glorious exceptions, but exceptions are not examples. So, such debates rapidly degenerate into a contest of one upmanship and it starts resembling a court room where the aim is to proove that the other person is wrong and not to proove that you are right. I've seen this sometimes even with some of my best friends whom I consider to be amongst the best debaters and who make a conscious attempt to argue on the strength of their convictions. With the not so talented debaters, their debating will degenerate further from that of a court room to that of the parliament where it doesnt matter whether the other party is listening or not, you simply shout whatever you want to. This leads us nowhere. Such a debate is an absolute waste of time.
THE AIM OF AN ARGUMENT SHOULD BE PROGRESS. Only then, is there any point in arguing about something. There is absolutely no non-trivial issue where one side is 100% correct and the other side is 100% wrong. So, if we argue on the strength of our conviction and with ovreall progress in mind, our eyes will open to new perspectives that we have not thought about. This will eventually lead the arguing parties to understand why the other person is saying what he is saying. This will undoubtedly result in progress. If this happens, people will agree to some extent that there can be no generalized solution possible for most non-trivial issues. As a result of this, people will take a holistic look at any situation, think about pros and cons from all perspectives and take a decision on a case by case basis. It might not be practically feasible to take a decision on a case by case basis in some situations. Even in such cases, thinking from all perspectives will definitely help. This will eventually lead us to being on the side of reason and will enable us to take the middle path. Instead, if we were to blind our eyes to the most justified arguments of the other person and simply keep repeating our points, no matter how justified, we can neither claim to be on the side of reason nor can we take the middle path. Following the middle path is absolutely vital for the just and fair handling of any situation and this virtue has been extolled by many a saint. Thirumoolar quotes the following in this magnum opus Thirumandiram
Nadunin raarkuandri gyaanamum illai - Persons other than those who follow the middle path do not possess great wisdom
Nadunin raarkunaragamum illai - Hell will never befall persons who follow the middle path
Nadunin raarnalla thevarum aavar - Persons who follow the middle path will become gods
Nadunin raarvazhi naanum ninrene - I too follow the path of people who follow the middle path
Nadunin raarsilar gyanigal aavar - Persons who follow the middle path become great sages
Nadunin raarsilar thevarum aavar - Persons who follow the middle path will become gods
Nadunin raarsilar nambanum aavar - Persons who follow the middle path will make great friends (Doubtful translation)
Nadunin raarodu naanum ninrene - I too stand alonside those who follow the middle path
(DISCLAIMER: I am no expert in tamil and these translations might be wrong from an academic perspective but the spirit of the verses in Tamil have been captured correctly in the translation to the best of my knowledge)
Lets consider the debate on reservation as a small example.
a1.) Says the anti-reservationist... Why should ones birth tilt the odds in favour or against a person? Why should I be denied a chance to study in a college I want to even when I have more brains that the one who actually gets the seat?
a2.) Says the pro-reservationist... Why is it that the majority of the top posts in India are occupied only by the upper caste people? Why is that you dont find any upper caste people cleaning sewages and sweeping the streets? The odds are terribly in favour of the upper caste and reservation only slightly corrects it.
b1.) Says the anti-reservationist... We have been having reservation for the past 50 years and if there is no significant improvement in the status of the so called lower castes, what is the proof that it will improve the situation now?
b2.) Says the pro-reservationist... Yes, it has improved to some extent. The only reason why you see many SC/ST IAS/IPS officers these days is due to the helping hand of reservation.
c1.) Says the anti-reservationist... But what happens to merit? Why should an intelligent boy suffer for no reason of his?
c2.) Says the pro-reservationist... What makes you think people from lower castes are less intelligent? It is precisely this opinion of people like you that has resulted in the social ostracization of huge sections of the society.
d1.) Says the anti-reservationist... Look at the western nations. They too have inequalities. They tackle it at the level of the primary education. Dont get belied by the statements of these politicians. They are not trying to help you be reserving seats for you. They are simply trying to divide and rule.
d2.) Says the pro-reservationist... No. Though the politicans are in general bastards, this is the only time in the history of India where they are trying to do the correct thing. Dont even dare to belie this.
and the debate continues with no end in sight. Each one simply rephrases the same point in different words and keeps on shouting without actually trying to make sense of what the other person says. This will only lead to total chaos and absolutely no progress will be possible.
Another great problem with arguing is that of context. When a person A says something, there is a HUGE amount of unstated contextual information behind this. Unless one really makes a sincere effort to understand that, we can never get, forget the exact meaning, even the approximate meaning of what was said. If we do not get a clear understanding of what the other person says then there is absolutely no point in replying to him. Its like two people A and B arguing where the only language A knows is Sanskrit and the only language B knows is Latin. There is absolutely no point in continuing with such an excercise. In the debates that I have seen so far, I've almost never found a case where two debaters genuinely try to understand each others context. So, to make alteast some progress in any non-trivial argument, the two guys involved in it should be prepared for the long haul. They need to argue patiently, genuinely and with progress in mind. If this happens, the two guys concerned can understand each others' concerns and will be able to decide the right path towards progress.
I've personally NEVER been a great debater myself. Main reasons would be the lack of sufficient fluency in spoken english, inability to keep gabbing at will and an inconscious mind that always tries to take the middle path. So, when I argue, if my opponent says a valid point in his support and if it is something that I have not thought about, I go back to my drawing table to think again about my ideas and thoughts. As a result, Ill stop talking and that kills the debate. I've been doing this unconsciously for a long time and have started to do this consciously off late, even at the risk of being projected as indecisive. I do believe that taking the middle path in this fashion, even at the risk of being labelled indecisive, is always the right thing to do and hope against hope that atleast a few amongst the powers that be also think along similar lines. Also, can we, the general public, ingrain this ability of taking the middle path into our daily activities. If atleast a small minority succeed in doing it, the quality of our society will increase manifold.
3 comments:
now a long post warrants a long comment. [though the usual yapyap comment it will be].
There are certain debates where no arguing person can be proved wrong for they are 100% correct in their own way. wanna example :
When could the Sun be nearer to earth? Is it during the noon or at dawn[dusk].
On the one hand,
When an object is nearer it appears bigger. I could see a bigger disc of the sun. By that argument, the sun is nearer to earth @ dawn & dusk.
On the other hand,
A body's heat is felt more when it is closer. At noon earthmen feel the sun's heat more right?. Hence Sun is nearer to earth at noon.
Only one should be correct. So which one is it ?
so, it all depends on ones' knowledge. A good debater should be able to debate for and against the topic. that shows his true depth of knowledge. The sanga kaala patti mandrangal, arasavai vaadhangal those are examples of how debates should be.
beginners argue, wise men debate.
And there is no middle path to choose in this world
Sounds like a very familiar discussion :)
@ba3 - I'm finding it tough to understand ur point... are you saying "for non-trivial issues, it is not worth taking the middle path"
@Swami - which one?
Post a Comment