Why It Would Be Bad If Jesus Was Here
Post from September 20, 2017 (↻ June 3, 2021), filed under Philosophy and Everything Else (feed).
Arguing is something we have to learn. I observed this particularly in recent years when I started studying philosophy and went through courses for logic and argumentation theory. These courses have not made my own arguments all valid, sound, flawless, but—they made me realize that arguing is something we have to learn.
They also led me to look at common discussion culture a little differently. On YouTube, for example, on Transfermarkt, indeed, in blogs. One doesn’t need training to tell that in some fora, there’s no argumentation, no discourse, often not even a conversation. It’s more like everyone decided to yell at the same time. Verbal noise.
In some threads, the discussion culture is so terrible that all that’s being done is destroying. This song is sh_t, that player deserves to be kicked out of the club, this coding technique is from the 1700’s, the other commenter is a moron, who says something critical is a hater, and anyway, whoever reads this is stupid.
This is not arguing. It is: destroying.
Now the curious thing about this, then, is not the questionable approach. Even if we disagree, why wouldn’t we take the time to understand the other party; to take it that we could make a mistake; to still disagree respectfully?
No, the curious thing is that we can always destroy.
We can always destroy.
Even if Jesus came into the door right now, there would be people saying, “what are you doing here, don’t have you more important things to do, people are dying in Africa, Trump is still in office, and in the oceans, there are still microplastics everywhere.”
And they would have a point.
One can always make a point, and that may be easiest by being destructive.
But does that have value?
It may have insofar one argues that emotional abuse is useful to harden people.
But it may not have otherwise, because even if one makes a point, it’s not saying anything. Anyone can make a destructive point. As such, destroying is neither a sign of character nor of great intelligence.
What may be of more character and of more intelligence, and my point here is not to present a bulletproof argument but to merely raise awareness for conversation, is to try to understand the other side; to be respectful; to perhaps not attack (destroy) the other view but present (create) one’s own view; and if none of these is within one’s reach: to remain silent.
Update (November 14, 2017)
I wonder if accidentally, this turned into an argument against skepticism. And one for our absolute freedom.
I’m Jens, and I’m an engineering lead and author. I’ve worked as a technical lead for Google, I’m close to W3C and WHATWG, and I write and review books for O’Reilly. I love trying things, sometimes including philosophy, art, and adventure. Here on meiert.com I share some of my views and experiences.
If you have a question or suggestion about what I write, please leave a comment (if available) or a message. Thank you!
Maybe this is interesting to you, too:
- Next: Freedom = ƒ(Money)?
- Previous: The Cost of Frameworks, Illustrated
- More under Philosophy and Everything Else, or from 2017
- Most popular posts
Looking for a way to comment? Comments have been disabled, unfortunately.
Find adventure anywhere? Try 100 Things I Learned as an Everyday Adventurer (2013). During my time in the States I started trying everything. Everything. Then I noticed that wasn’t only fun, it was also useful. Available at Amazon, Apple Books, Kobo, Google Play Books, and Leanpub.