A Short Summary for Zanmek:

I want to make this clear, as well: when I debate with someone, I do play to win, but it is not for some ulterior reward, but for the love of the debate, as is the virtue of the sportsman in all games. It is a “win-win” situation, truly, since the one who “loses” a debate and is converted wins the greater boon, the prize of growth and knowledge, while the one who “wins” receives the lesser prize: the comfort of a confirmation.

 

Most of what I say I say for argument. I do not “hold” these arguments as “my own views”, as though they were extensions of my person and to damage them is to do injury to me. In short, I’m not a lunatic, and I would love to meet someone who’d prove me wrong consistently in such a way that I believe in spite of foregone biases. In seeking to convert, I know that I may be converted, and I run exactly the same risk as Others. That is the extent of moral obligation in this matter; all else follows from this *a priori* principle.

 

So long as risk is mutual, it’s fair, and none escape it. I don’t need “permission” to debate. The simple fact we hold opinions reveals an underlying thirst for Truth, and Truth decides all things. To form a point of view is to throw down the gauntlet by default, for even private thoughts are challenged. We cannot escape, so long as we are living on this Earth, that we’ll be proven wrong. As such, I must fulfill my duties to my fellow man by contradicting him. The proper answer is, “I thank you for the offer and accept your challenge. May the finer viewpoint win, and truly fortunate is he who loses.” 

**[({R.G.)}]**

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Image
Yes: I value the opinions of others, insofar as I can vouch for their integrity. Yet that requires that they fervently believe that what they say is true, that they can stand beside it, put it into practice, and uphold it as a sacred principle, as though it were a Higher Power which compelled them. It thus follows that, so long as an opinion is valid, one must validate it not by merely practicing that view within one’s own life, but by holding others to it. One cannot impose morality on anyone, because morality is binding on us all, in equal measure, and one’s only burden is to fathom it, to the extent one can, and to uphold it. That is not an imposition; it’s an obligation, and, without it, we have nothing. You once asked me: “At what point is it an evil to impose one’s views of righteousness on someone else?” I’ll answer with the obvious: at no point, whatsoever, since it is impossible. Where Righteousness is what’s at stake, one can’t “impose on someone else”, as though one posed a
Read more

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

  I've been reading, recently, about the life of Robert Kelly, whom you'd recognize from *Space Jam*'s soundtrack, the "Ignition" remix, and his many other hits, such as "Trapped in the Closet". It just breaks my heart to see how he was treated, not just as a child who had to grow up much too fast, but also as an adult, even after having given us such heartfelt, soulful music. I could never reconcile those sweet and sentimental, loving, sometimes mystifying tones with the entire image of a sex offender; he was a Don Juan, but not Don Giovanni.   Clearly, that same mainstream media that made him famous had betrayed him, while the legal system, which was never there for him when he himself most needed and deserved it, in the tenderness of youth, went well beyond its obligations in defence of "children". The hypocrisy is not the part which angers me, as it is so ironic that it's laughable, and that alleviates some of the sadness of this gr
Read more

The Early Death of Any Future Peace:

  The biggest problem with the issue of abortion seems, at first, to be that no one wants to talk about it *as* a controversial issue. All the major arguments which either “side” reiterates have been around for roughly half a century at least, and we have made no progress in resolving them in the last forty years. This does not stop idealogues from acting like the matter’s settled and that *their* side won, however.   Yet beyond the moderate, “politically correct” and “civil” surface of the issue lies the deeper issue: Hardly anybody wants to talk about abortion *in itself*, and those who advocate for “choice” (and, by extension, for abortion, as it has to be a choice) are those least willing to discuss *the act itself* and whether it is good or evil to commit.   Instead, we hear from advocates for “choice” a slew of beautiful ideals, impassioned speeches, and redundant platitudes: -    the value of one’s bodily autonomy, -    the need for women to receive protection in a m
Read more