|
To elucidate the idea of making an argument from a place of uncertainty, I present a quotation from Chuang Tzu. If you look at summaries of his "philosophy" categorizations like "intuitionism", "monism" and "non-dualistic" "trans-rational" thinking will be applied. I think, once you read the quotation, you will see if one understands anything that Chuang Tzu says, one wouldn't even try to categorize it. Lets just use this quotation as a meditation to understand what it means to both argue and be uncertain at the same time: "Suppose we have an argument with each other. If you beat me instead of me beating you, are you necessarily Right and I'm Wrong? If I beat you instead of you beating me, am I necessarily Right and you're Wrong? Must one of us be Right, and the other Wrong? Could both of us be Right, and both of us be Wrong? Since neither of us can come to an agreement on that, then other people would be impervious to our muddled ignorance. Should we ask someone else to decide who's Right? What if we ask someone who agrees with you? Since he already agrees with you, how can he make the decision! What if we ask someone who agrees with me? Since he already agrees with me, how can he make the decision! What if we ask someone who disagrees with both of us? Since he already disagrees with both of us, how can he make the decision! What if we ask someone who agrees with both of us? Since he already agrees with both of us, how can he make the decision! Since that's so, then you and I and others wouldn't be able to come to any agreement. Do we depend on other people's opinions?" (From "The Inner Chapter 2: Theories on all things being equal") Now hold his words in your mind, and try to make an argument. You still can, but the whole thing seems more hypothetical, less insistent, and more... relaxed. One cannot meditate on this and hold any hostility towards any point of view - one�s ownership of one's own point of view beings to fade.
|