In my 22 years of existence, I have stood right in the middle of many debates, peering deep into the arguments presented by both sides1. In every major or minor argument, I have quietly studied and watched the arguments presented by both sides2. And after these long years, I have come to a conclusion.
Every opposing argument in a debate can be further deduced to two conflicting premises. These two conflicting premises can be further reduced to other conflicting premises. The problem here is that only one of of these premises can be right or wrong. And the premises used to deduce whether something is right or wrong is again based on other premises. The entire thing is a painful paradox. Human thought is flawed since the parameters used to judge whether something is wrong or right are decided by humans themselves3.
The idea presented above is a very dangerous thought which can damage any existing and non-existing social order leaving utter confusion in its path. So, on a personal note, I use two premises to evaluate any thought (idea) or proposition:
1.What makes a thought or an action good? If every member of the human species were to follow the action or an idea and there would be no harm in the propagation of the species, the thought or the action is good.
2. What makes a thought or an action bad? If a thought or an action discriminates against the equality of any member of the human species, it is bad.
These premises are not absolute. They throw open a huge number of other questions. Other problems include definitions. What is ‘harm’? Can a few members of the species be harmed for greater good? If so, are there baselines for this number? What are the premises on which these baselines should be decided? What is greater good? These questions again lead to the same conclusion: Human understanding is flawed. It is a quasi-stable set of premises judged on another quasi-stable set of premises.
If human understanding is flawed and I am human, it could mean only one thing: The understanding presented here is also flawed. And of the many paradoxes in life, I have found this to be the ultimate paradox.
Footnotes:
1. I have been asked by a lot of people (here and elsewhere) on why I don’t take sides. One of the major reasons that I do not take sides is that I like to analyze the reasons on what makes people take sides. It could involve a factors of which the major factor would be the environment. An understanding of these factors helps one to isolate the thought from the person. It is easier to work with people when you address the reasons behind their behaviour rather than addressing their behaviour. It takes time and it is a huge pain.
Secondly, just imagine a world which contains only theists (or atheists), or only liberals (or conservatives) or only Microsoft (or Linux). Do you think that it will be an interesting place to live in? Differences are an integral part of human thought.
2. There is a funny side to this: I can argue for and against both sides in any argument.
3. I might be sounding religious here but religion does not lend itself to absolutes. I have seen numerous debates about various issues in all of the world’s religions.
Feel free to agree or disagree. Whatever you might do, it is still subject to the ultimate paradox!!
2 Responses to “No Sides. Only Questions.”