Every time you engage in a discussion about whatever topic, you have the predisposition of believing that you are in fact the smart guy within that particular discussion. Have you ever asked yourself whether you are in fact the stupid guy?
No matter how many people participate, what academic degree they have, what age group they belong to, what race or color they are; name any other social extension of definable human personality; you never think: “I am not intelligent enough to understand this topic or even to make a valuable contribution to it”.
On the contrary! No matter the various extensions which might be present within the material and/or social pool of the discussion, you will always think that YOU are more intelligent than your ‘opponent’.
Setting aside the more deeply rooted problem whether or not the ‘opponent’ really exists, one might ask oneself how this predisposition of superiority changes the structure and flow of the discussion. After all, we discuss things to find meaning, definitions, structure, and logic… shortly: Truth!
I don’t think that finding truth within any system (i.e. discussion) which is build upon the predefinition (i.e. predisposition) of the predefined subject (i.e. identity) as ‘truthfully’ higher in degree could lead to any true or ‘truer’ conclusion. In fact, the very idea of predefined definition without any at least circumstantial evidence (i.e. the flow of the discussion or the very identity of the other identities involved in it) is in itself impossible.
You might have been the smartest guy around for your entire life, but every time you engage in a discussion you have to become extension-wise blank, tabula rasa, and so should everyone else involved, no matter how objectively stupid they might be.
No comments:
Post a Comment