Imagine two musicians, each one playing a different instrument, sitting across from each other in a room, and they both are playing exactly the same song, the same tune. If you know anything about the dynamics of sound then you should know that the sounds made of the same frequencies (notes), when played in time with each other, will reinforce the sound of the collective music. Regardless of the fact that there are DIFFERENT instruments playing the notes, and therefore creating different sound waveforms, the sound of the music itself becomes stronger and is more effectively distributed throughout.
The same holds true for arguing. All those involved are playing the same tune, singing the same song, the "I'm Right, You're Wrong" song, which only encourages everyone involved to keep playing it and maybe try it with more gusto. This, of course, accomplishes absolutely nothing in most cases. It doesn't matter whether it's a truly important issue, like the abortion debate, or not. I wonder at how people can think that more aggressively imposing their own beliefs and opinions on people, using whatever means (the newspaper, TV, Facebook, etc.), will motivate others to stop doing the same. After all, it is often said that imitation is the finest form of flattery. Why, in the world, would you want to flatter someone who's being a jerk? By acting like a jerk yourself, no less?
I would like to believe that people argue in the pursuit of truth rather than just to give themselves an ego boost. Alas, I know that this is not often so. Besides, even if it was so, arguing is hardly an effective tool for achieving such a goal. I love the truth, even if it means I get proven wrong myself at times, I won't ever give up this love, and I'll keep seeking it out until the end of my days.
This is my perspective on arguing (most arguing anyway). Please tell me what you think or ask me whatever questions you have. And until next time, God bless.
Nathan Matthew Knerr
No comments:
Post a Comment