World as I Think

People who know me for sometime would acknowledge that i could pick an argument about anything and everything; I would definitely vouch for it. Not that i am a fighter cock, i like discussing about things and my way is of the questioning type. I happily rely on logic for my arguments.

I recently picked up an argument with my fellow colleague. He was leaving our company and seeking another career. Out of genuine interest, I asked him as to what he wanted to become in life and as to why he chose this new career and the particular domain. He told me that he was interested in management and didn't want to do a content type of role. I asked him as to how he knew that he was good in management. He said that he wanted to be in the decision-making arena rather than truck on the operational issues.

It was getting interesting, I wanted to provoke him with what i learned in MBA and with good intent, I told management needs a lot of interpersonal skills and asked him whether he was comfortable with it. He replied that he was comfortable with people. I wanted to dig deeper, I asked him as to what he was good at, for example being analytical, creative, leadership or intutive. He out rightly replied without any reflection "I would excel in whatever i do and it should not be problem".

I said that its fine that you can do everything but there must that something which comes to you naturally. He was still stubborn on defensiveness and replied that there is nothing that i am so good or bad but i can do what i am given. He started coming personally at me and asked why don't you tell me what my dreams were in life and what comes to me naturally. I apprised him about my dreams and what comes to me naturally. He gave a very brunt reply "I really can't accept what you are saying". Oops, I didn't know what to say when somebody was trying to negate my views without giving any reason to it. I am not feeling bad about somebody opposing my views; i was rather disappointed that they had not cited reasons for it.

I knew if the argument continued, it would unnecessarily end up in a personal tussle rather than contesting on the content, which we were discussing. I stopped and observed his body language and found that he had his hands pocketed.

As he was a good friend of me, after sometime i told him that it is not necessary that two people need to have the same point of view. I just asked him why don't you reflect on what i say instead of out rightly rejecting. I also told him that even his body language suggested that he was very defensive and that’s why i didn't want to continue. He dared to give a damn about it and quipped I don't believe in body language and it is not true. Boy, oh Boy, how do we deal with people who don't want to accept a point of view without even quoting a reason for it. As i know him, he was very logical in his work and somehow got illogical in this one-off situation.

It happens everywhere, the stock markets crash not because the companies performed badly, its merely because that greed propelled by irrationality overwhelms logic. We follow humpty number of procedures and superstitions with full confidence on our ancestors. Most of them could be really being built on the context and could have perfectly fit that situation. We need not totally discard them, we need to just understand what we are trying to do and that comes through reasoning.

Logic has its own limitations as well, that’s what Immanuel Kant tries to say in his book "critique of pure reason”. Everything cannot be logically explained, as they may not be comphrendable by the limited dimension of our thinking. That doesn't give the liberty to waive off logic; it can be applied to the extent where it can be and most of the times reasoning ends at the apriori which need to be taken in good faith.

Now to the all-important question how do you combat non-rationality with rationality? Simple, its either we need to impart rationality, the basic premise is that we can discuss something only when everybody understands the subject of contention in the same way and have substantiation for it. If we can't, it’s better not to argue because we cannot understand what the other has to say. Now what if we have to co-exit, its better to accept as they are and wait till each of them reach a capability to understand each other