Okay, I have a pet peeve… well, I have multiple pet peeves. Like people who sniff their snot back up into their nose, come on, just get it out. And people who don’t thank the workers of the many forms of service that exist in this country, just say thank you, their human beings, not your servants.
But as annoying as that is, there is one pet peeve that stands alone. One that simply infuriates me to my core. And in short, it is how we debate ideas.
In my pursuit of knowledge, I have found a common trend in how we develop ideas. We first take an assumption, treat it as an undeniable fact, and then build it up from there. This is the process for all knowledge because unfortunately… there are no objective facts. Therefore, every argument has its limitations.
It is this truth (ironic since I just said there are no truths) that must be acknowledged to understanding why someone thinks what they do. Most people, especially people who are willing to talk about their ideas, have spent some time considering their thoughts and developing what they think. This is why it usually takes a little bit of digging to understand where someone is coming from. But eventually, with enough questions and desire to understand, we can usually get to that root difference in our assumptions. And I feel that it is only there that beliefs and knowledge can be changed.
Now getting to my pet peeve, I HATE when people don’t have that same goal. When they can’t help but see their assumptions as truth and consider nothing else. Because obviously you will be correct then. Without considering a new assumption, and in other words a new truth, then you really won’t be considering anything but the thoughts you already have yourself.
The number of people that I have met who are either incapable or choose not to consider these other assumptions truly bugs me. Because then it almost always leads to me walking into their turf and allowing them to present their build-up assumptions. Which is fine, don’t get me wrong. It is good to let them talk about their world so that I can better understand it… but it’s a two-way road.
After the person has built their reality in front of me, it only makes sense for me to then do the same. And once both are presented we must find the core and compare them in an effort of seeing who is more likely correct.
I think we all should attempt to relax our egos (which I define as the consciousness we identify with), accept when we “lose” a debate, and acknowledge that nothing is real. Because as abstract and unnecessary as all of that appears, I feel it is only then that we consider things that our minds would not have naturally thought of given enough time.