-“why do you think you are always right?”
- “that’s the only way to be.”
Of course it didn’t dawn on the questioner that I was
helping him with his identity. Once he chooses a position for himself and
starts doubting that folks with other positions might also be correct, he
simply goes back to point where he hasn’t made a position at all. That is not
to say that choosing a position is important. It’s not. Choosing a position is
empty task – you need actions to back up your position. But this is purely
academic exercise. The questioner was under the assumption that if he doesn’t
allow this kind latitude to his thought process, he will be considered
narrow-minded and rigid. He will not be able to see other’s viewpoint, which
might be better than his.
Of course there might be viewpoints better than yours. That’s
why I am open to debating – a real exchange of ideas. But when you enter a
debate, you enter with the thought that you’ll be rational and it was your
rationality that made you choose a certain position. So you’re basically
entering with assumption that you are right and you will be able to convince
the other guy of misconceptions the poor bloke has. When you debate you
criticise the person in front of you to not be able to think it through and
somehow be inferior to you in intellectual prowess. But then you hear him and
you again let your ego slide aside and consider what he has said in fully
rational angle. If he has made any mistake is your first concern. And it’s only
second step when you realise that you might have missed something yourself. Voila,
it’s time to re-do the thinking. But if it’s the opposite then you are where
you were. The other person missed something. Of course there’s a dignity to the
whole process which asks the smugness to be left behind before you jump in. But
over the years, the tactics of argumentation has inculcated a number of weapons,
which include satire and reduction-ad-absurdum. So a little bit of smugness do
creep in. however no matter how imperfect things are, we should always strive
to keep the ideal in sight.
If you’re not doing this, then you are simply closing
yourself from every exchange of ideas. You live in some kind of utopia, where
everyone is right. Thinking that all who differ from you might be right, you
are actually saying that you might be right (and, not that you are right). In a way it undermines the
whole rational framework which has been basis of your existence as it takes out
conviction from each of your move. It also takes away from you the right to
criticise. The right to criticise is so important to team workings.
A team performs better than individual not because everyone
respects each other’s view. No of course not. The world will not go far if
everyone started doing that. In an ideal team, all team members should first
consider the point put forward by anyone in a rational way and then try to
criticise it. If the idea withstands the criticism, it will have necessary
immunity to survive. If this sounds too negative approach, then you just need
to add a couple of more scenarios as I for sake of my point used only one. In the
other scenarios you might hear someone who has been supporting your point of
view and found some more evidences of your idea being good that you hadn’t
considered till then. Or, you heard such a brilliant idea that you have made up
your mind to give up your own position and jump on his bandwagon – of course
keep your rationality floating during the jump. So if you’re not doing this in
a team and being a little bit too respectful of ideas floating around, you’re actually
being a weaker link in the team.
This whole thing occurred to me when I was an agnostic. But that’s
like answering a question with I don’t know. I would have left myself in that
bracket had religion not bothered me so much. But it did and did a lot. So, it
became sort of important for myself to find a corner to stand in. I can’t stand
in the middle of field and say I don’t know when so many were looking for
answer. Of course there are loads of things I am agnostic about. I am agnostic
about them because I have never thought of them. Even if I have thought of
them, either the easily accessible information in this digital age has
overwhelmed me or there was too little of it. Do I think that everyone with
different point of views about those is right? No. I don’t know. I don’t even
know the different positions. And debates – I don’t have any point-of-view so
no question of debate. In case I meet someone who knows a great deal about it
then I just listen to him and try to make sense. A one-way exchange of
information and sometimes ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment