Controversy and Argument.

It is quite an understatement when I say, "I hate to argue". I just...I don't know..never ever been comfortable arguing (at which point, you might pipe up with, "whoever is?") because trust me, I know several people who are. There are folks that revel in this craft and wield their expertise in it.

"Argument for an argument's sake". Rather puzzling, is it not? At the same time, however, I find that the subject fascinates me. I am currently reading The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer and in one instance, he says:

"If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion which we had begun by expressing, or of the opinion of our adversary...... ........But, with most men, innate vanity is accompanied by loquacity and innate dishonesty. They speak before they think; and even though they may afterwards perceive that they are wrong, and that what they assert is false, they want it to seem the contrary. The interest in truth, which may be presumed to have been their only motive when they stated the proposition alleged to be true, now gives way to the interests of vanity: and so, for the sake of vanity, what is true must seem false, and what is false must seem true".

Meaning, simply, that most people hardly think before sta(r)ting an argument. I am particularly intrigued by one of the common fallacies of any controversy--ad hominem. I like it especially because it reflects the arguer's immaturity of mind--the fallacy, I have discovered, is also very easily recognizable. Taking a stance is one thing, but assuming a position that vetoes or criticizes the person rather than the argument itself is just....plain dumb.

Vanity, thy name is human.