“Disagreements with the goal of discovering truth, eventually establish truth.”

I recently heard that people are reading my blog, which is pretty cool and exciting!  However, when I looked over the comments, it seems like everyone was just agreeing with me.  Which while great for my ego, isn’t really great for the sake of discovering truth.

So, here is my request, if you are reading the blog, please post your points of disagreement as well. Only through disagreements can we better get to the true truths of life, and that is after all the main point of this blog (well, besides being an outlet for me).

If you know me, which you may or may not, you will know that I will not take offense at your total disagreement to my post.  I have learned that often times there are two equally valid sides to an argument depending on perspective, and sometimes there are, in fact, two truths.  However, often times the goal is to figure out if there are two truths, or just one truth, and the only way to know this is to argue with no chips on ones shoulder, with no preconceived notions, and with an understanding of the other person’s position as you communicate your own point.

By taking this mature attitude, you can work together to arrive at the truth, which after all, is the ultimate goal, isn’t it?

4 Replies to ““Disagreements with the goal of discovering truth, eventually establish truth.””

  1. OK – I disagree with a few things.
    1. True self esteem results from accomplishments – pure and simple. False self esteem – just thinking you are good but with no accomplshments- lead to egotism.
    2. Telling a child he is good or bad can both be bad. If you tell a child he is good but he did not earn the praise, he will develop a false sense of self esteem. If you tell him he is bad, he may be stifled and never achieve anything.
    3. There are not 2 truths to everything – there are multiple truths depending on the perspective of the person observing. This is true in science, religion and personal lives.
    4. One does not have to disagree to arrive at a higher truth or higher level of understanding. If two or more people are discussing something, each can add something that allows a more complete and “higher” truth to be achieved. On the other hand just disagreeing can lead to endless argument with no meeting of the minds.

  2. Two points on the first two comments, Dad:
    1. Accomplishments can only lead to self-esteem with regard to being competent in accomplishing which may or may not be of any value to an individual, so I would disagree that true self esteem results from accomplishments. In fact, I would argue that this is why many people have such low self esteem, because the way society measures accomplishments is through the amount of money in their bank account, and thus, if they don’t make it financially it can lead them down the road of poor self esteem, when in fact their financial situation has nothing to bear on what kind of person they are. Of course, you will argue that this is not the kind of accomplishment you meant, however, I think the point holds truth, that if you base things on accomplishments, it makes your self-esteem based on a subjective value proposition and not one of intrinsically.
    2. Agreed, a child is neither good nor bad. His actions are good or bad, but the child just is – and we all just are. However, none of us are good or bad – only our actions are.

  3. 1. We are not reading your “blog”, you are just imagining it.
    2. Anything resembling an agreement with you on the web MAY be true. Disagreements are only the tip of the nasty iceberg.
    3. The internet is a poor resource for discovering the truth.
    4. While there MAY be two equally valid sides to an argument, the term “valid” depends on the perspective, but the “truth” depends on the facts. Ross, only wanting a committed relationship, thought he and Rachel were on a “break”; Rachel, not recognizing the emotional needs of her boyfriend and the flirtiness of her work colleague Mark, decided she needed some single “time” to think. But the facts are Ross, hurt and without a girlfriend, sleeps with the copy-girl leading to Rachel being pissed and a plot line that flip-flops over too many seasons. (Rachel and Mark DO eventually kiss.) Bottom line … semantics and alcohol … if you are arguing about either, you should have laid down some ground rules well before the first drink! In the right quantity, alcohol will bring out the truth.
    5. IF you are arguing without chips, preconceived notions, and with an understanding of the other person’s position, you are not arguing, you are having a discussion. Try discussing the topic with a preconceived chip – you will argue much more successfully!
    6. Most stable people just seek resolutions – sometimes the truth is involved. Sometimes a convincing story lets you sleep peacefully from that point forward.
    7. “Maturity” is often a disguise of delusion … which is why senility usually arrives in the extremely mature. A good trial lawyer never asks a question in court that s/he doesn’t already know the answer to. A regular person seeking whatever resolution there might be should try and be as mature as s/he can be when the “truth” smacks them in the face.
    8. The content of this blog will be copied over and over to a thousand different servers preserving every statement and comment for generations to come – or until the last copy is overwritten to make room for more pornography. Be careful about which truth you publish.

Leave a Reply