The arguments
Publicado por Patricio Varsariah el miércoles, octubre 4, 2017

![]()
![]()
When do you think of an argument that is what comes to mind? Intensity? Fight? Conflict?
The arguments provoke words like these because we are culturally conditioned to consider the argument as a war. We use terms like "attack a position", "win or lose ground" and "tear down an argument". Due to the way we see the plot, the goal is undoubted to win.
But should that really be the case? By definition, an argument is simply a disagreement that alone does not involve a winner and a loser. However, the words and metaphors we attribute to the argument have convinced us otherwise.
We are all guilty of adhering to the cultural vision that winning is important and losing is shameful. However, imagine what life would be if the disagreements that are void of winners and losers and notions of victory were absent from the discussion.
Imagine a culture where an argument is seen as a dance, participants are seen as interpreters, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way.
In such a culture, people would view the arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them differently, and speak of them differently. "
Perhaps the metaphors we use influence the way we interact with others more than we would like to recognize.
What if, instead of winning and losing, we saw the successful arguments as reaching an agreement, or absorbing multiple points of view, or where they all move away?
Could this foster a greater desire in all of us to simply learn from others rather than put them in their place? We must consider whether we let our cultural opinions inhibit our will to learn.
The aim of the debate or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Now how can you argue with that?

When do you think of an argument that is what comes to mind? Intensity? Fight? Conflict?
The arguments provoke words like these because we are culturally conditioned to consider the argument as a war. We use terms like "attack a position", "win or lose ground" and "tear down an argument". Due to the way we see the plot, the goal is undoubted to win.
But should that really be the case? By definition, an argument is simply a disagreement that alone does not involve a winner and a loser. However, the words and metaphors we attribute to the argument have convinced us otherwise.
We are all guilty of adhering to the cultural vision that winning is important and losing is shameful. However, imagine what life would be if the disagreements that are void of winners and losers and notions of victory were absent from the discussion.
Imagine a culture where an argument is seen as a dance, participants are seen as interpreters, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way.
In such a culture, people would view the arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them differently, and speak of them differently. "
Perhaps the metaphors we use influence the way we interact with others more than we would like to recognize.
What if, instead of winning and losing, we saw the successful arguments as reaching an agreement, or absorbing multiple points of view, or where they all move away?
Could this foster a greater desire in all of us to simply learn from others rather than put them in their place? We must consider whether we let our cultural opinions inhibit our will to learn.
The aim of the debate or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Now how can you argue with that?