Locating that error step in your line of thoughts

Locating that error step

A lengthy argument can be built on logical steps. Whilst the argument seems rational and quite convincing, you sense something is erroneous. My aim is to find that one small piece that contains the mistake. This is another way to look at philosophy, getting to the core of the truth. Some like to win the argument by any means. Others do not care who is right or wrong, they want to know the reasons why they are wrong. Along the way we may highlight aspects we do like about someone’s idea. Curiosity allows us to make the light people offer us even brighter and split it into its colours.

Those adhering to a stoic philosophy accept that there is nothing they can do about certain things. So, there is little point worrying about these things. To be a stoic one needs to decide what is in their control and what is not. They determine what they can change and what they can’t. The error would be found in what they differentiated. They believed something could not be changed. What if lots of people want to see change. Change can be possible in lots of situations if there is the will to make those changes.

I get irritated whenever I attempt a cryptic crossword. Even with the answers, I don’t always see the connection. Would I get better, go from zero answers to a good few with some practice? Maybe, but the clues make me irritable, so I steer clear of them. My frustration with these cryptic crosswords has a parallel with the frustration others have with deep conversations. I therefore understand why they prefer to change the subject when discussions get too deep. We have memories of sad times and bad events in our lives. When we think about these it can sour our mood. Hence, it is understandable that people avoid getting drawn into conversations that bring up things that they would rather forget.

The flaws within language create a lot of argument. The word selfishness has many meanings in each context and requires thought beyond the dictionary definition. Curiosity is not just the wish to understand a big problem, it arises in much simpler everyday forms. Where did I leave that book? - is as much about curiosity as what you might hope to learn from it. Words are concepts in themselves, and they trigger a set of other thoughts. In many cases we don’t have a word for an idea, but that doesn’t stop us using the tool of language to get an idea across to someone else. Pain and suction exemplify the point. Pain can be an aggravating signal for some or a joyous feeling in others. Pain can be linked with reward.

Vacuum cleaners do not suck up dirt. There is no suction in physics. The dirt gets blown into them. However, the concept of sucking up things stands. We understand what someone means by it. Whatever you begin debating there is always going to be a problem with the multiplicity of language. You may have five thousand words at your disposal enabling millions of combinations, which is then multiplied by the number of different meanings to each word. Change one word in the sentence and a whole new avenue of thought can open up. By mincing the meaning of a word, the argument deviates from what someone was arguing about.

Mothers have told me that they enjoyed giving birth. They enjoyed the pain during labour. Women will instantly say, “only a man would say that.” I said women told me that they enjoyed giving birth. Would you undertake an operation without pain killers they ask? I said that women have said they did not need any pain killers during their labour. Not all women, some women. It is what women have told me. There is a temptation to talk about the pain I have endured but that takes the argument away from child birth. If more women understood that the pain can be embraced rather than feared and masked, then it could be helpful to some. Some, not all. It won’t help someone that is in labour for twenty-four hours. It may help a small but significant percentage of women. Deviating away from the central premise elongates arguments. Stick to talking about your initial proposition.

The joy of language can be found in many situations. I recall someone warning me of the monkeys that were “very thief”. I understood what they were saying despite the grammatical error. I question how often we spoil a discussion by being pedantic. We fully understood what someone was saying but feel inclined to correct their grammatical errors.

“I need some money.”

“You don’t need money; you would like some money.”

“I would like a cake, and I need money to buy it.”

Winning an argument can lead to a loss of friendship. You may prove you are right but the person having their error pointed out may like you a lot less after. Hence, we often let things go unless showing someone they are wrong is vitally important.

We argue to get things done, to get changes made. Real progress is made when agreement is reached. When people have gone to war, one side will end up agreeing to sign a treaty or armistice.

It is hard for people to accept that their memory is not as good as they think it is. False memories can be implanted quite easily too. We find it hard to believe that we muddle up information - regularly. Quite a few people deny that they have got their facts wrong. More disturbingly, we fail to acknowledge that people who have been raped do not store details of the events very well. Someone who provides an inconsistent disorderly account of the ordeal is highly likely to be telling the truth.

Sometimes arguments are a damn good way of venting frustration and beats aggression any day. Balance as always. Shying away too often from arguments it as damaging as arguing too frequently. Learn to argue well. Good things come from it. People that avoid arguments allow discontentment to stew. Bonds are made when we argue a little.

Some people receive a message, one that they are not too impressed by, and send an immediate kneejerk response. Other people wait a while before they reply. By leaving it a bit, you can mull over the options and give it some proper consideration. It is amazing how much more conciliatory you are when responding an hour or maybe a day later. It helps if people read messages they get twice. We often get the wrong idea the first time we read it. If necessary, we can acknowledge receipt of the message straight away, allow ourselves to cool down a bit then respond fully later. Powerful people delay their responses.

Complaints and counter claims; Write out what you would like to say. Go into all the detail. Explain how you are right, and they are wrong. Point out all the things they have done wrong. Don’t miss anything out. Explain everything that you are annoyed about. When you are happy with that, put it aside. Now write a brief consolatory response to send/publish instead.

An argument is diffused by listening. A hot head has lots to get across. I tend to hear them out. Eventually they run out of things to say, then you can work on areas of agreement. In the same way that we do not like being given advice, we do not want to be forced into changing our mind. To make any headway with stubborn sorts, you need to ask questions that lead them to change their opinion by themselves.

Passionate people can be most endearing. Passionate ranting is a different matter. A cool, calm, collected explanation of your woes in a soft voice brings about sympathy for your situation. We all get aggrieved by injustices, unfairness, unreasonable behaviour and more, but some can’t soften their vexation. We nod our heads and leave as fast as possible.