Does it matter - in practice - who is right?
Many times people fight over relatively small things. Most of the time, it's always about what's the right thing to do and who is right. One says that the behaviour of the other isn't right, and the other says the same thing. The more opposed they are to one another, the more alike they become, in that both become more and more driven by the same.
Take a child fighting with his parents about what college to go to. The child says that he should be able to determine his own future, that his choices matter, that he doesn't want to do something he doesn't like, and so forth. His parents say that they are providing the money for him, that they know better what will be good for him, that they understand the world and life better than he does, etc.
Or take a couple fighting over an infidelity. The woman is angry that the man cheated on her. The man tells her she doesn't understand him, that he wants an open relationship, that he still loves her and so on so forth.
The reality that people on either side refuse to accept is that there is no solution which will please everyone. In practice - what is really right doesn't matter, because what's right doesn't guarantee that everyone will be pleased. It's only when both participants submit to Truth - and are driven by a love for Truth and Rightness - that what is right matters - then matters can be solved, then the wrong-doer can be convinced.
But in practice, most of the time this isn't the case. So the glaringly obvious truth is that conflicts are irresolvable. The only solution is either violence (and this isn't necessarily physical violence, but any way of compelling the other to go your way) or leaving - getting away from the respective person. And this holds true across the spectrum, whether between people or between corporations or between nations.
And yet people devote so much time on arguing themselves out of the hole... even if they are wrong. But the fact is that if they were proven to be wrong, they would find another argument and another and another. The real reason behind their resistance is that the alternative doesn't please them. They could not bear the alternative. The child cannot bear the alternative of the parents. The parents cannot bear the alternative of the child. Arguments are besides the point - no discussion will change anything about that, since both of them are devoted to their selfish desires rather than to Truth.
Take a child fighting with his parents about what college to go to. The child says that he should be able to determine his own future, that his choices matter, that he doesn't want to do something he doesn't like, and so forth. His parents say that they are providing the money for him, that they know better what will be good for him, that they understand the world and life better than he does, etc.
Or take a couple fighting over an infidelity. The woman is angry that the man cheated on her. The man tells her she doesn't understand him, that he wants an open relationship, that he still loves her and so on so forth.
The reality that people on either side refuse to accept is that there is no solution which will please everyone. In practice - what is really right doesn't matter, because what's right doesn't guarantee that everyone will be pleased. It's only when both participants submit to Truth - and are driven by a love for Truth and Rightness - that what is right matters - then matters can be solved, then the wrong-doer can be convinced.
But in practice, most of the time this isn't the case. So the glaringly obvious truth is that conflicts are irresolvable. The only solution is either violence (and this isn't necessarily physical violence, but any way of compelling the other to go your way) or leaving - getting away from the respective person. And this holds true across the spectrum, whether between people or between corporations or between nations.
And yet people devote so much time on arguing themselves out of the hole... even if they are wrong. But the fact is that if they were proven to be wrong, they would find another argument and another and another. The real reason behind their resistance is that the alternative doesn't please them. They could not bear the alternative. The child cannot bear the alternative of the parents. The parents cannot bear the alternative of the child. Arguments are besides the point - no discussion will change anything about that, since both of them are devoted to their selfish desires rather than to Truth.
Comments (18)
Given any situation where people disagree as to what ought to be done, how could the purported truth of what ought to be done be known? IT might be obvious when it comes to some momentously moral questions; but about matters of less significance? Whose will then ought to prevail?
I'm not sure that people really do fight over the right thing to do, or who is right.
Take the parents and child squabbling over which college he will attend. The 16 year old wants to go to Podunk State College, where several of his friends think they want to go. He currently wants to be a biologist. The year before he wanted to be an historian and then an engineer. His parents want him to go to the University of Wisconsin and take a pre-med program. The 16 year old boy has no clear idea of what his life could or might look like next year, let alone in 10 years. The parents want him to take up a vocation which they think will bring prestige and large earning potential.
Who is right and what is true? Neither are "right" or "wrong" and the only truth about the situation is who is going to pay the bills. The boy's interest in biology is probably transitory and the parents interest in prestige and earning potential is quite possibly self-referential. The boy may not care much about either prestige or big bucks.
The boy might be right that the state college will be more comfortable socially, and maybe he thinks he isn't good enough for the huge UW campus in Madison. The parents are probably right that the Madison campus is a better launch pad than the Podunk State College campus. Madison is better, as a matter of fact, but only for ambitious students.
The most important issue in this case may not be on the table: which decision will be in the long term interest of the boy? Whose interest is most important here--the boys or the parents? What will lead the boy into the happiest future, and what will lead the parents to the certainty they did the best they could for their child?
My advice would be for the parents to stop worrying about income and prestige, and get the boy some high quality vocational testing and counseling (which is probably not being provided by the school). There are many vocational and educational possibilities the boy is not aware of. It is also the case that UW-Madison, which is a fine Big Ten research university, is also something of a mill. Lots of students end up coming out of the chaff chute rather than the escalator to the top.
I've always been fond of Laurie Anderson's O Superman. I never realised for years till an American told me that the voice quoting Herodotus was actually a voice quoting the US Post Office motto :
The message will get through. But how will it be received? She says it starts with love - when that fails...
In the last resort we talk to the person who will always think we're right, won't she?
Yes but these abstractions are precisely what folks use to negotiate.
Quoting mcdoodle
Intolerance is inevitable as my post shows. It's merely the fact that we are different that ensures that there will always be intolerance - because we'll always have to deal with matters that we can't accept, as will others. Power (violence) is one way to deal with this - but this should be avoided, at least with people who are close to you - family, friends, etc. Power is also inexistant if you're not talking from the same levels. Negotiations can't do anything because folks are not willing to compromise on these matters that I'm referring to. The child ain't wiling to compromise with his parents, neither are his parents willing to compromise. The only solution remains leaving - going out on your own, making your own journey, for both parties.
Quoting mcdoodle
Ehmmmm I don't understand this "need" to have anyone agree with you. That seems to me to be the height of absurdity - going to a person, or talking with someone just so they agree with you, because, if you have any brain, chances are that you know they only agree for show. I've gone through life with most people - including my parents - always disagreeing with me. I never felt the need to have someone agree. I live my way - you have yours.
I think the problem isn't that the truth can't be known, but rather that folks don't give a fuck about the truth.
Quoting John
The one who can compel the others - for whatever reason - to do as they say. Power or Truth - Mammon or God. You have to take your pick, you cannot serve two masters.
Yes neither are right - the boy's interest is transitory (despite the fact he thinks otherwise), and the parents' interest is self-referential and wrong-headed (you don't mention that most doctors don't have that great prestige nor that great earnings - while Bob the farmer next door who has no education but owns 20 cows and growing will in 5-10 years earn more than the great doctor who spent years in med school - not to mention that he will pretty much also be self-sufficient - that's the great shame about parents doing this for money. If they really wanted their children to have great earnings they should have sent them on the streets to start selling something - anything - to do real valuable work out there for anyone who needs it - not pay tens of thousands of dollars for university. I could never understand how most parents think. Some of my friends already have children, and they're thinking which schools their children should go to and whether or not they should invest part of their money on a private tutor - and the reason they're thinking about it is because they want their children to be rich. What nonsense. If all you want is that your kid is rich - and you don't care whether he's knowledgeable or virtuous or anything else - then send him on the street to do useful work. That way he'll have what it takes to become rich. I never understood this lawyer/doctor obsession. Most doctors and most lawyers don't have great earnings, nor great prestige - end of story).
Quoting Bitter Crank
But you see - you are still playing the game, as if either the parents or the child actually gave a fuck about what the truth is. As if they actually cared. But the truth is neither cares. The parents care about some ideal they fell in love with - some personal vision they have of the child, who is their product and therefore his achieving that vision is THEM achieving one of their purposes. The child cares about some momentary passion he has, and him pursuing that is HIM achieving his current purpose. And that's all there is to it. Neither cares for the Truth, and that is PRECISELY the problem.
You miss my point here. In the song it's a progression. When even force fails, after love and justice, in settling a problem, you talk to your imagined mother, the one who will always forgive you whatever you've done, who won't disagree with you when the chips are down. (In the song this provides no relief, as it turns out Mom is a robotised State).
You say that 'the abstractions are what people use to negotiate'. I agree, but I'm saying it's the negotiation that's primary; the abstractions are just tools to use; for me, they aren't important matters that require Capital Letters.
When force, love, justice and so forth have failed, you don't talk to your mom, you pack your bags and out you go :P
Quoting mcdoodle
Yeah so? I'm just saying that the abstractions fail because people don't care about them - they don't really care about Truth. They treat it just like you, as an abstraction. And then their differences become irresolvable.
I don't know what the TRUTH is for this family, they don't know what the TRUTH is for themselves, and you don't know, either.
Take my own case: Up until a few months before high school graduation, I had no clear idea about what I would do after I finished high school. When I was a senior, I expected to find work immediately after graduation -- in the state civil service or something worse... My parents thought I had done well to get ready for some sort of paying job. I had no idea how I would live (day to day details). A few months before graduation, thanks to a social worker's intervention, financing for college became available and I applied/was admitted to a state college. I trained to be a high school English teacher but I was, I quickly discovered, singularly NOT cut out to be a high school teacher. (That was a stab of truth.) I finished college, hired on to a two-year stint in the domestic peace corps (1968) which was kind of a halfway house/sheltered workshop for me. It was great. Then I got a masters degree to be a high school guidance counselor. The faculty didn't recommend me (they thought I would fail in the role). I promptly succeeded doing the equivalent of guidance counseling with college freshman.
In all of this, there was no TRUTH revealed. Truth didn't begin to appear till decades later, and at the time that I needed it, it was nowhere in sight.
What do people really know? Well, we have desires, we have thoughts that sort of reflect what we desire, and we have a trove of stand-in material to clobber ourselves and each other over the head with -- like TRUTH.
The TRUTH is that we have to figure out how to live for ourselves and with other people, and that is a process of learning, failures, negotiations, set backs, advances, successes, pauses, confusions, loves and hates... but all that isn't, in itself, about truth.
The truth is that The Truth manifests itself only rarely, and usually too late. There is no useful category of statements called TRUTH.
Truth is old age - thus spoke Bitter Crank :P
But there are all kinds of situations in life where there is simply a clash of wills about what should happen, and often over very trivial matters, situations where there is no possibility of knowing the truth about 'what ought to happen'.
Quoting Agustino
So, you are saying it is OK for those who are the most ruthless, or those who possess the greatest physical strength to compel others to do their will? If that's what you want to say, then it sounds like you wish to serve Mammon.
Sure.
Quoting John
>:O - no I'm not saying that this is what OUGHT to happen (or as you like to put it, that it is OK) - but rather that this IS what will happen (most likely).
Well, yeah, I have no argument with that.
Oh, right... I should have seen that...
:s
Yes, but that's not the point I'm making. If you look at the OP and proceeding conversations, you will see that it's about the dynamics of such relationships. The point I'm making is that they - the participants - are more often than not, NOT interested in what the TRUTH is. This is not in disagreement with the fact that neither you nor them know what the truth is.
If they were interested in the truth, then they could work together to solve the problems at hand (even if they don't know what the truth is). But they don't work together precisely because they are not interested in what the truth is, but rather only interested in their selfish momentary passions.
So you're saying that people passionately argue cases which they do not themselves believe to be true because I find that very difficult to believe as a general rule. There are of course situations in which you might; when playing devil's advocate, for example, or when bating someone just for the pleasure of seeing them lose it. But I cannot accept that it is characteristic of all.