from Hunter Leath
Arguing in itself can be intimate and filled with emotional fervor. By its very nature it is emotional given the very presence of an opinion. Despite the reality of the age that has so desperately tried to create an atmosphere of professional and philosophical intent, which on its own can exist given certain circumstances, it has seemed to fail in the realm of the public or what we would call in this day and age normal or the normality of the people. This being a very fluid and abstract idea in itself but helps to define the ideals of arguments based purely on emotion. Given the normality of the day and what a normal argument between two very ordinary sorts it can be said with certainty that whatever the topic may be it is filled with emotion.
This can be seen through a string of logic that dictates that an argument is spawned by two conflicting opinions. These opinions are often times the premise for a healthy discussion but due to the delusion of what an opinion actually is in this realm it has turned regular and peaceful discussions into bitter and heated debates. An opinion by its very definition is one subject to the idea of belief and holding no merit in factual evidence is simply that of perspective and individual ideals. This, not to be disrespected by any means in a discussion, cannot be seen as factual or holding any merit of truth aside from the understanding of what it truly is, which is an ideal or belief. Given this we can see that an argument is construed of two conflicting opinions as has been stated and that the emotion comes from the misunderstanding of the scope of an opinion. Given that mankind is plagued with selfishness and arrogance attributed to the condition of sin and its effects on the soul, humans are seen as faulty and not always rationale or even logical in their understanding of their own opinions. An opinion to those lacking understanding is not an opinion at all. Surrounded by pride and, in some cases, lack of self-confidence an opinion can be turned into a fact. Some would stand by these opinions as factual purely on the basis of pride. This pride runs through all of us and can be controlled but to the extent when it is left unchecked, we allow any deviance from our own beliefs to take on the appearance of a personal attack. This being where the emotion flows into an argument and that which ruins a discussion for all involved.
There is only one way to solve the problem of the age pertaining to healthy and fruitful discussion that has been predicated by our ancestors such as Plato and Aristotle in the ways that discussion can be helpful to the soul and to the city as a whole. The sole solution is a mutual respect for any opposing view that is perhaps in conflict with your own. It is a mark of a knowledgeable man to take the rebuttal of another, not as a challenge, but as a perspective. It allows for self-evaluation and in so doing creates a respect for one another which is congruent to a healthy discussion. The idea of questioning your own ideas is not only healthy for your own sake, but also for those around you as self-criticism leads to understanding. If one finds themselves in a discussion with another who refuses to respect the others position, it is faulty to continue the discussion as it will only lead to anger and then an argument will ensue. This will lead to an unproductive session of who can raise their voice to the highest octave and simply end with both parties feeling personally attacked. If you find yourself in such a situation respectfully listen to the other and then leave the discussion with respect for what they have to say, but an understanding that you simply hold a different view. They may take this poorly but it is no longer up to you to dictate their feelings.
If today’s age would simply try to hold a respect for the opinions of others, despite them being contrast to yours, perhaps a better understanding would be the result. It would allow for healthy discussion of the differing views which could lead to a better understanding of these views that are held and possibly change views previously held through logic and peaceful negotiations. Gridlock would no longer be an issue for people, or governing.