Nothing has to be static. Not that anything can be static, but I’d like to talk about ideas, beliefs, and feelings. These tend to be the things we try to hold onto statically for as long as possible. Things don’t have to be the same, always, forever, and be unchanging. What this means is that your thoughts and beliefs are more of a liquid than a solid, if you allow them to be. Think of a situation where many years ago you had some confidence in some idea that you thought was complete truth and that there would be no way that it could be invalided, and then it was. You may have never saw it coming, but it happened, and you had to acknowledge and deal with that change. I think everyone has experienced something like this in their life, even the most arrogant have had to accept that they were wrong on something once or twice.
In this acknowledgement that ideas can be changed, even the ideas you believe to be complete and utter truth; they can end up shattered because of a person, or an event, or really any external means, and then you also can begin to notice that all other ideas must also have some amount of variability. Suppose a thought like “I think people are inherently evil.” How does this type of thought come about? If a person is holding this thought, this idea, how did they get there and what would it take for them to change the idea?
Because I have this thought, and have been slowly trying to break it down, I can also tell you some of the things that allowed it to form, what brought me there, and what it will take to change it. I could vaguely tell you that a mix of environmental, genetic, and mental conditions all played a part in allowing that idea to fester and take hold within my mind, for me to believe it is truth. Although, I don’t want to get into the nuances for this particular thought, because I currently find it too personal, but I do believe it can begin to shine some light on what types of variables are going to influence what types of thoughts. While I don’t want to talk about that idea in specific, there are also other examples that I break down, to a limited extent, like evil and love, and the morality validity of stealing.
We can take the thought or idea that “people are inherently evil” and move it into its most opposite form, which would end up being “people are inherently good” or perhaps instead of “good” we can say “loving.” The point is, we can have both ideas and there are people with both sets of ideas. One can believe that people are inherently evil and the other can believe that people are inherently loving, and that doesn’t even include all the people who don’t think either, and all the people who find a grayness between the two. For the sake of clarity and my sanity, I ask this question in the context of those two statements: At what point can we decide which idea is more or less correct? Well, most would acknowledge this type of thought as being one that is almost entirely personalized. They are aware of the factors that form this type of idea, and because of this awareness, they almost automatically see it as something fluid. In is fluidity, too, people can see its ability to change much faster than an idea that’s a lot more solid. However, I want to make note of the solid ideas, because I believe that those are actually not solid, but instead, just as fluid as any other, because everything has a valid argument.
There are some thoughts and ideas that some people hold to be true, despite any argument you might want to bring forward, or really any counter-argument you want to propose. Though, there tends to be some leeway with some ideas, take for example the idea “stealing is bad.” There are many who would stand by this statement, for they truly believe that stealing is bad across the board. No matter who you’re stealing from, or why you’re stealing, or what you’re stealing, the act is a bad thing, and they believe the person stealing should be punished for the action. No matter what type of argument you would attempt to propose to this person, they would be unable to give up their belief that stealing is inherently bad. It is unlikely this type of person is able to acknowledge all the forms of stealing, for obviously this isn’t the only type of person that exists when it comes to stealing. For example, I have actively pirated music, games, and software online, and pirating is a form of stealing. Whilst I have never stolen anything from a physical location, I have stolen product, digital product. Does that make it okay? It depends on your perception of such acts and your past experiences, and especially what you’ve been taught and exposed to during your upbringing, and what you are actively told to believe and think now.
There has been a key-word used often, “belief,” and that word has been used intentionally. It showcases the malleability of such ideas, no matter how closely someone might hold it dear to their heart. There is no set belief that everyone must follow, there just tends to be punishment for some. How would you go about convincing someone who doesn’t steal and thinks all those who do steal should be punished, that there might be circumstances where stealing isn’t inherently bad? What would it take to convince such a person of such a thing? It might be difficult to do so, especially when proving any soundness to your argument might just reinforce their existing beliefs, and thus they are unable to hear any part of your set of views or ideas. Even if you were able to convince this person to consider some possibilities to why someone might steal, and why those reasons might be okay, it may have taken a lot of time and energy. Think about another thousand steps in the future, when you have to then work the person into a mindset of considering all other arguments. Rather than just proposing your argument, you have to make the other person acknowledge that all other arguments have a level of validity. Whether you believe that stealing is bad or good, it comes down on the situation of the individual, and all individuals have their own reasons, all of which have validity, despite what your religious texts say or the law. However, I would be careful to say that while all arguments might be valid, not all arguments are equally so.
So, how do we convince someone that everything has a valid argument? Or really, how do we know that to be true? Suppose you’re in the position where you don’t think your argument is a belief, but instead, it is of fact, of utter and complete truth, even if it is something like “stealing is bad.” Could you actually pinpoint how you came to that conclusion yourself? It’s pretty unlikely. There’s a reason why people don’t all come to the same conclusion for different morals, and we can especially identify this in different parts of the world. Not only that, even in things like legislation, there are always many things are up for change. Even if law is your moral-backbone, the law changes, and it is always in a state of change. While some things don’t change often, others are more likely to change. If you observe the change happening in other people and in legislation, what stops you from changing your own beliefs, or at the very least, acknowledging that the other beliefs are just as valid as yours? Perhaps, it should be considered that your ideas really aren’t your own, no matter how hard you want to believe they are, and I’m no better. There are a variety of variables that you didn’t have control over which formed your ideas, and because didn’t have any control over them, you can begin to see your ideas really aren’t even your own, which means you can take or leave them, and hopefully get closer to making them your own.
If we are to continue on the “stealing” theoretical, how deep can you personally delve into yourself to find the origination of when you identified stealing as good or bad? Personally, I’m pretty limited in how deep I can go, I lack a lot of memories from earlier childhood, but I could tell you a few things that I know definitely impacted my thoughts on stealing. For one, my family was against stealing, and they were certain to make me aware that I was ought to have those ideas as well as them. Secondly, I’m certain throughout my education, teachers and other educators have made sure to spread the message that “stealing is bad” with their own words, and I’m sure the educational system has forms of messaging to share this idea, perhaps in the literature that students have to read, but I have no way to be certain if it goes that far. The point is, eventually, with all this information being absorbed into my head, I had learned that stealing was a bad thing, and I should not steal, for whatever reasons that were provided. So, I went on thinking that way, unquestioning, because no one had offered a counter-argument. Eventually though, I had learned of the ways of those who do steal, and their reasons for stealing, and why they would steal, and sometimes their lack of reasons for stealing. Not to forget there are those who steal because it is normalized within their systems of thinking; part of their daily routine, and always has been. Now, if you were to think about how far back you can go with your stealing morality, where does it begin? If you were able to find a path better than I have, that’s great, if not, that’s okay too, because what I’m really trying to say is that we, at least most of us as children, teenagers, and adults, were unable to control the information we were internalized, and this often still can be the case.
If we lacked that control, and those ideas were implanted by those who did or didn’t have intents behind their implantations, how can we know whether something is right or wrong? How can we decide something is decisively truthful or less truthful, one argument is truer than other? Well, it becomes nearly impossible to do so. For all of these things are fictious, created by another person for a particular purpose in mind. Imagine if everyone in the world thought stealing was something reasonable to do, and thus, everyone stole. Clearly, things would not work out so well, for those who sold goods would never be able to exist, and so they would stop producing goods, and then there would be no goods to steal anymore. I can already hear a voice saying “but in the modern day, a few people can steal, and everything is fine, so stealing must not cause people to stop selling goods!” In response, I would tell you that it is exactly because fewer people steal than not steal that things do function, because we’ve been taught, we shouldn’t steal, and so most do not steal. The point is, while it may have been implanted in us to believe that stealing is bad, and we shouldn’t steal, maintaining that idea in the majority of people allows the systems that already exist to continue functioning, at the very least, that’s what I believe the intent or purpose is, even if the people parroting the idea aren’t aware of it.
My goal is to make you aware that all ideas, morals, and all other forms of thought are really reactions to other reactions, and you can only trace back a certain distance as to how far those reactions can go. Once this is understood, you now are aware that your own ideas aren’t really your own, but just responses to already existing ideas, and now you just cope with that, because it would be impossible to create a completely new and different idea, for all your thoughts and ideas are based on and from what already is. This is not to say that different ideas can’t exist, for you can still be influenced by all the information around and from before you, but based on all that along with your own set of genetic features, you can create something different. It probably will take a lot of time and effort, and it usually has less to do with you creating something different, or thinking something totally different, but more-so discovering a different version of an already existing idea. However, the point is, depending on all the variety of influences on a person, they could have come to whatever conclusion on whatever thing based on factors outside of their control, and they are likely unaware that this has happened to them, because they’ve had no comparison to see that they’ve been internalizing information without even realizing it. There is also, perhaps, a chance they have been ignorant to it, because they find comfort in the stagnation of themselves, and would prefer to ignore the possibility that there are unnumerable external factors that have made them, them, and they didn’t get to choose those things, and they’ve only built new ideas and thoughts based on those thoughts and ideas that have been placed within them.
If all of these ideas are fair game, depending on your past, your present, and your ability to see the fluidity of all ideas, how could you begin to say that one is better than one another? Well, you begin to lose that ability, because in this new sense of awareness, you can’t see things in the same way, or at least, when I gained this awareness, I couldn’t. Instead, I began to see things as fair game, but I still had a sense of morality and preference, although now, I knew that my preference existed as a result of all the imaginable and unimaginable factors outside of my control. To a certain extent I want to maintain some of my moral and ethical ideas, but I have to keep them in check somehow. I try to use logic, if possible, to check if my belief makes sense, and if doesn’t, I search deeper, if it does, then I’ll be willing to accept a better or more true belief, but for the time being, I’ll have a certain level of contentment with whatever I already have. For example, back to stealing, I gave an example of a world with every consumer stealing, and then, what do you know, the world stops functioning. I prefer a world without stealing, and that is my preference, and so my justification would be something along those lines. I don’t want to partake in the act of taking what isn’t mine without paying something, because if I want the system to work, the system that has given me comfort, I have to also play by the system’s rules. Although undeniably, if I had been influenced as a child to think that stealing was a good thing, and that I should steal, perhaps I would have logical reasoning as to why I should steal. Even I didn’t have the comfort that I have had, and still do have, maybe I would be more okay with stealing, because in that scenario, the system hadn’t given me comfort, and I would feel I should take what I am owed. Maybe I would think one should steal because the world in of itself is corrupt, and so I should participate in its destruction, for I can help construct a proper world, but until that proper world comes, I will abuse merchants via stealing. This would be a logical reason for stealing, however, it is not something I align with, but I acknowledge both sides are valid.
Once it is understood that all sides of an argument have some level of validity, assuming they are structured with some sort of logicism and reasoning, how does one go about actually deciding which side of the argument they wish to align themselves with? Well, in my personal experience, based on how I have perceived myself and others changing, they tend to stay within a specific road unless they are influenced to exit that particular road. Their original road tends to be one based around their experiences up until that point. Whatever happened in their childhood, in their education, what their friends have said, and so on, will all decide their means of alignment. This generally means there is very little change that will occur in their ideas. If they already had ideas created based on all those previous experiences and influences, the next step to changing those ideas would be new experiences and influences. Convincing someone logically, just using words, to think a different way doesn’t occur very often unless the person has already put themselves in a mindset where they want to accept new ideas. Most people need a mix of words and real experiences, experience they can tangibly and physically feel, before sharing their perception or view on something.
There have been times when breaking out of certain systems of thinking or beliefs was incredibly difficult, and to this day, I still have times like those. In these times of change, I was so caught up in one side or the other that I believed that side of an argument was totally infallible, and that no counter-argument would actually be able to compare. If I can’t keep myself in check, and if I can’t identify if a belief is helping or hurting me, if my side of the argument should change or not, who or what can? What has worked well for me have been people who I believe to have some resemblance of intelligence and thus are capable in providing thoughts and ideas that are conveyed in an intelligent enough manner for me to actually consider the opposition. Not everyone will have this, and I will at the very least acknowledge and consider that books and other forms of media can introduce and produce arguments to existing ideas. However, what I find with people are the alignment of the type of person and the type of ideas they have. If someone I likes has a certain belief or idea I don’t have, and I can logically deduce how or why they got there, I’m more likely to change my belief to theirs. Some might like to change their ideas with arguments, and that’s fair game too. However, there are many cases in which a person is providing a reasonable counter-argument but they are incapable of conveying it in a way that is intelligible. This makes me not want to interact with said person, nor consider whatever argument they want to provide. When interacting with these types of people, I try to be kind and courteous, but I attempt to exit the conversation or argument, as an act of submission, because it would be difficult to communicate effectively with such people.
Just because everything has a valid argument doesn’t mean the person with the valid argument is actually capable of making their argument understood. If they aren’t capable of this, how could you ever consider their argument? If it doesn’t make sense, in the way that they use words, how would you consider what they have to say? I don’t, I struggle to handle people who can’t convey themselves with clarity. However, it’s important, at the very least, to make these people aware that they aren’t doing a good job conveying what they want to argue with you about. Sometimes they aren’t arguing about anything, but sometimes they are, and it can be hard to identify when they have something of substance to say or not. This brings into question the validity of whatever they might to have to say in the first place, because if they can’t say what they want to say in a way that makes sense, is their idea really going to have any value? It makes one wonder if all arguments are actually valid. However, you have to steer clear from believing that some arguments are invalid, but instead begin to acknowledge that not all arguments are equally valid, as some are silly. Valid arguments can be applicable across the board, but I want to make a clear differentiation between an argument that is valid and an argument that is silly and nonsensical.
Arguments that tend to be in the latter of the two are those who doesn’t have any sort of logical or reasonability behind them. They seem to be based around purely emotion. Of course, emotion is going to play a part in any argument, however, when your argument is grounded in emotion, it can’t also be surrounded by logical reasoning, and then when there is a counter-argument to the argument shrouded in emotion, it won’t invoke any change within the person because the argument itself does not exist to be fluid or changeable, but purely as a means as externalizing the person’s beliefs and making sure that everyone else is aware of these beliefs. They might not even be aware that they’re doing this, but spending your time and energy breaking down someone’s belief that doesn’t make any sense will be tiring. Consider when you do this, for myself, I do it for people I care about, but it’s rare for me to spend all that time and effort on someone I don’t know.
Being cognizant of when someone wants to project their beliefs and when someone actually wants to voice a point of reasonability will help steer you in a direction that you know when something valid is approaching. This comes with more experience, talking, debating, and obviously, arguing. Arguing with people will be the best means in order to improve and to take note of when you or they are neglecting a point of reasonability. Sometimes you might find yourself submitting to someone who is merely projecting their emotional experiences without any logicisms, because it would be pointless to go on, if someone doesn’t want to consider a different set of beliefs, they probably aren’t the best to argue with. Knowing when someone actually wants to argue rather than whine, complain, or just be purely emotional helps identify when an argument has actual validity. If you project merely your emotions, there is no validity to any outsider, it is only valid to yourself.
Another aspect of the validity of an argument is that there tends to be universal truths in all things. An argument might be grounded upon a universal truth, and that is partially what holds the argument in place, but it is because this particular truth is not equal to the other universal truths, that it becomes something notable, something worth arguing about. For example, one could argue that homelessness is a current issue and that needs to be solved. Another might have a counter-argument based on that fact that homelessness has always been an issue, thus it does not matter that homelessness is an issue now. This is not a valid argument. Just because homelessness has always been an issue does not invalidate the fact that homelessness is an issue now, because homelessness has not been in the same state forever, nor have all the other variables that make up the world. Even if they wanted to say because homelessness is less of an issue, so it isn’t worth talking about or thinking about, they’d still be silly. Just because homelessness has not been in a static state does not mean the issue can be neglected. There are many who will argue in this way, just because something has always been or is does not mean it has always been that way in the same amount for all time. Things are not always of equal amounts.
It’s also important to look out for those who will attempt to use logic and reasoning but it is actually disingenuous, they have no intent to logically back their argument, but will use words and common methods of arguing in order to pretend like they have some validity to their argument. This is something that will commonly occur in online argument, especially online text arguments, and arguing online is generally a silly practice. If you wanted to watch an online argument, or put yourself in the gutter, you will be able to watch someone actively switch around their views, change points, make up things, ignore other points, and so on, while acting like they are being completely and utterly honest, when actually, they aren’t, or they aren’t even aware of what they’re doing because it’s all they’ve ever known. Avoiding online arguments is a good way to avoid these types of people, but they exist in real life too, they can get very emotional quickly, as if you are unable to hear any of the words they say, but actually, they aren’t saying any words with intent or meaning, they’re just saying words. You can try to make this type of person aware of what they’re doing, but it will probably just make them upset.
There are also many other ways people might try to trick you into thinking their argument is correct or right, without any actual reasoning behind it, and there are also the people who want to argue in order to make themselves feel more correct, because they have no interest in changing their views, but merely reinforcing their own, even if you do bring a reasonable and logical argument to the table. Many times, the person is not aware that they are actively doing this, and will continue doing so without someone making them aware, so if this is someone you care about, try to let them know. Also, look inwards, for you might be one of these people but you aren’t even aware of it. Question your own arguments, think of the opposition, consider the opposition, try to consider as many varieties of the opposition as you can, logical or illogical, and make yourself aware of all the different flavors of thoughts that exist and how they compare to yours, for yours is just one among many, and all those many are just as true as yours.
After some time of thinking about the validity of all arguments, as well as the factors arguments are logically built from, you can begin to consider your own ideas and thoughts, and try to find which ones you worked and created yourself, which ones you allowed to influence you, and which ones you didn’t place there, but were placed there by someone else. You hopefully will get to a point where when you hear someone giving an argument, you listen to them, you understand their perspective, or at the very least, you try your hardest to understand, because if this person has a real valid argument, it is to be considered versus your own. Always remember there is going to be a better argument, a better idea, a better system, and you should actively seek these out, or be prepared for them to take place, and take note of when this happens, because later down the road, you may find that it wasn’t actually better, and you would prefer to revert back to what previous idea or system you had before.
Another hope is a greater open-mindedness to others and their views, instead of being absolutely certain of your argument or someone else’s argument, you are open to both existing in reality and of being of equal reasonability. Sometimes you might be more reasonable than someone else, and vice versa. Be accepting of these changes, acknowledge them, take note of them, and stay aware of them, for they will help you to continue growing in your perception of argument itself, so that you know when someone is trying to hurt or help you with an argument, or perhaps they just wish to make you aware of their argument, with no interest of actual arguing. I like to make someone aware of my belief or idea and then allow them to take it or leave it, I actually dislike arguing, I find that in most cases it isn’t worth it, but making someone aware of your ideas, and the other party making you aware of their ideas, is my personal best experience in the exchange of ideas. Neither of us say that our thoughts are better, but we see that both our thoughts can be considered, maybe we’ll like an aspect of each other’s thoughts, and our idea will be augmented to fit with our new information.
This is not encompassing all the ways that an argument can be valid or invalid, but I believe that it might give you some things to look out for in yourself and others. Arguments can be awfully tricky, especially with slippery people who really just want to deceive or abuse you, so be aware, being on your guard with unknowns is not always an awful thing, but with those whom you trust and are aware have some resemblance of intelligence, be more open to them, be kind to them, allow them to critique you, and in return, critique them, be considerate and direct, while also staying specific. Keep your mind open to new ideas, for if you don’t, better ideas will pass you by unbeknownst to you. Be respectful, be aware, and consider ideas you may have not normally considered, for in them, you may find answers to questions you’ve had.