|
This evokes an observation, based on the current political climate.
I'm fascinated by folks who seem to think they will convince someone with an opposing political view by process of rational/logical debate. I've never seen that happen. If I thought it was effective, I would engage in it myself - which I do not.
Clearly rational and logical arguments can be constructed to support nearly every opinion humans hold. Evidently there is something else at work here. It could be called blind belief, argument from assumption, or emotionalism - but I think it's more than that.
Experience is not something that can be formulated well in logical/rational contexts. There are essential aspects of our perception and cognition that are not demonstrable, yet they guide our strongly held convictions. One of them is our ability to ascertain character. That is a fairly unexpainable phenomenon, yet we employ it in making judgements about people.
It does stun me how the tendency to argue points, which are in all instances moot, continues unabated here and far more relentlessly in the politicalized press and media.
__________________
create evolution
|