The choice is yours
Today I feel a bit 'philosopher and I want to offer a reflection that is both a starting point for thinking about our behavior and the people with whom we deal every day .
Nothing new under the sun and nothing that has not already been dealt with better and more thorough, but I want to talk the same.
begin: each of us to decide to act rationally or irrationally.
I think that most of the choices to be made using the head that leads us to (at least) three ways of acting rationally, three methods.
These three methods are: 1 - logic , 2 - dialectics , 3 - sophistry.
If we follow the path of logic , our goal, our "goal" is to truth. Here, we are interested in the scientific discourse, we evaluate things in terms of their rationality. It is the light of reason that shows us the way to go. What catalyzes our thinking is the desire to understand and to know then, as of the time, communicating what has been learned and concluded.
If, instead, embrace the dialectic , we just want to be right regardless that it has or not. The reason we have this, and then things should be easier for us, but we can be wrong and what we should not touch at all. Here we do not serve more than the truth, if any. Basically there is an order to obey: "I must be right to be right or to someone else. Point. " The urge to take this behavior lies in the small or big advantage that comes to me and / or the fact that I have a person (boss or client) to be served. It's all about very personal ideals have nothing to do. And if I seem a visionary because I defend a just cause, are concerned with appearance. The truth is that my interest at all costs to be right occasionally coincides with the defense or the incurring of an ideal.
Finally, if we follow the third method, the sophistry, then we set ourselves against truth . Logic tells me "to", I say "b" and I said two, I say -1 / 2. Spouse falsehood and my intention is to destroy to destroy the banal.
That said, what is the mind that allows me to take one rather than the other "Road-method"?
the logic is the 'intellectual honesty . Idealists take this path. It is a never-ending quest for knowledge is infinite. These people know that you never stop learning, you can always improve, you can make a mistake (the spectrum of the error is always lurking), which is always a need to study, that the doubts are good and that there you should question.
In the dialectic, however, I have to do is obey to the client or master. The right and wrong concepts are secondary, I do not care, I'm interested in being right (or better: dare l’impressione di avere ragione). È una fredda questione di lavoro, di ruoli e di efficienza.
Nella sofistica, dato che è il contrario della logica, a trionfare è la disonestà intellettuale.
Detto questo, si capisce che a monte di qualsiasi risultato sta un metodo.
Quando si ragiona, non esistono bandiere, slogan e trovate simili. Queste cose meglio lasciarle al tifo sportivo.
Se si ragiona, si deve sposare innanzitutto un metodo che vuol dire servire qualcosa.
Nella logica questo qualcosa è la verità, nella dialettica il cliente e i propri interessi, nella sofistica la menzogna.
A voi la scelta.
Io partecipo
Alessandro Marchetti
