And therein lies my point.
Logic is fair and just, is it not?
The basis of arguments is the search for truth, using logical deduction from facts.
We base our arguments on what we know (or think) is logical,
because it is what puts us and the opponent on level grounds of discussion,
where we substantiate our points through flows of deduction and facts.
And there is usually at the end of the argument, Ceteris Paribus, one truth
which is the only truth that makes logical sense.
And then the truth becomes a fact.
On that basis, there can never be two opposing truths, like A>1 and A<1, at the same time/space/context.
There is no "more true" or "less true", simply because there is no measure of extent for truth.
The truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
No truth is more true or less true than another truth.
If not, it would be like saying "This apple is more apple than this apple"...
That established, back to "Men are born equal" and the most convoluted part.
Can personal experiences be taken into account during arguments? (Parents have more personal experience than us, but are they necessarily always right?)
Granted, one with more relevant personal experiences might be able to provide a more convincing argument about a certain subject.
Yet, "Ethos" was separated from "Logos" for a reason, because they are simply different.
Even though both constitute to an argument, the search for truth should ideally be based solely on "Logos",
as it is the only thing that can convince generations and ideologies to come.
Ethos, no matter how powerful, can never overcome logic. (Logic says you need to have a break once in a while. Parents say you need to study constantly and not waste your time. Which do you believe?)
Drawing back to the apple metaphor,
one cannot accept the argument that "My apple is more apple because I know what an apple is like more than you"
Several fallacies can be seen from this.
1. You can never fully understand what the opponent knows, and cannot assume that the opponent knows less than you do. ("Because I am your parent and older than you." Sounds familiar?)
2. As established above, an apple cannot be more apple than another.
Then, to "they are also born different".
Arguments are not channels for us to impress our thoughts onto the opponent.
Especially if what one is trying to impress is fallacious or just plain not-true. ("You should use the computer less because the only thing you can use it for is playing games."...WTH)
Imagine "My apple is more apple than your apple because in my reasoning, an apple is blue in colour.
I believe I am always correct because I know more than you about apples,
and you should think the same as me because I am always correct.
Therefore you should think I am correct!"
Take a while to think, cos it really makes not sense at all.
Its like saying "I'm right because I'm right"...(IF definition of "your parent" = someone who is right, "I'm right because I'm "your parent" = ?)
In fact, even if we really know something is the truth, we cannot just simply force others to think the same way, right?
Think human rights, freedom of thought...
One should have the choice to follow that truth or to acknowledge but not apply it.
Just like an apple is good for health (truth), so you should eat apples (follow). ("I'm your parent, so you should do what I choose to let you do, no more, no less")
That doesn't mean you should always eat apples, right?
That's what I meant by acknowledging the truth, but not putting it into application.
Its not a sin or something bad, but just a difference in choice.
We are all different, so we cannot be expected to make the same choices,
which links back to why arguments are not channels for us to impress our choices onto others. (Much less threats and "blackmail" like "If you don't listen to me, you won't get your allowance"...)
Why all these blabbering? Highlight the entire text to see the hidden brackets.
Sigh...(Parents, we can never win an argument against them, can we? They've got the "PARENT" veto...)
No comments:
Post a Comment