Rules of Warfare

War is not chiefly fought through brute strength or the grandeur of one’s arms. Conflict is not settled through straw-men nor through stereotypes. In the end, it is not the wittiest argument that endures. Behind the scowling faces and enraged rhetoric lies the source of all disagreements: Differing ideologies.

Friendships have been splinted and blood has been spilt because of Ideological Warfare.  Many live in their own sectarian strongholds and plug their ears to “defeat” other ideas. There would go the way of the Ostrich with his head in the sand. They hope and plead that the opposing idea would not see it massive body because the head is below the surface.  Some today would even propose a schematic that would seek to propose that all ideas are of the same caliber and should/could coexist in perfect harmony. This fantasy is violently torn to shreds as a prey is torn by the Tiger when measured against the woeful images in the media.

I am sure that is not a novel summation of the plight of global and local disagreements. Many have sought to create a method of seeking peace. I am not naïve enough to believe that I have the hidden treasure of peace solutions, but I would like to comment on the methods of discussion. This will not be exhaustive, but I will ponder on paper that which floats in my mind concerning healthy ways to battle worldviews. 

I have been around many debates. I have argued with vigor on a point and been frustrated when I could not convince my opponent. I have changed my ideas and looked back of my former self with a pitiful grimace. When ideas clash, a thunderstorm of emotion erupts from many and clouds the very point of the argument, which is to convince the other. In the midst of the jabs and ducks of the argument, my idea shines in my own mind like a golden throne, and my opponents ideas seems to reek of the stench of an outhouse. Therein lays the great problem.

Nothing frustrates someone more than a misrepresentation. In the desire to win and be right many morph ideologies into giant monsters in order to message their on consciences and win public opinion. While at the same time, they want to make their worldview into a victorious warrior parading through a captured fortress. No one can behold the truth while mutating the reality. No forward progress can be made without honest evaluations of the worldviews that clash.

I believe this begins with an attempt to view the system of thought through the eyes of the ones’ who favor it. Do not try at first to deconstruct what you have not fully attempted to understand. Perceive the proposed benefit in the minds of your opponent. Try to immerse yourself in not only their worldview, but the emotions and opinions one would feel who is in favor of this system. In conversation, this will give you the benefit of understanding where the other is coming from.

The next step is to search (if applicable) the historical outcomes of a particular ideology. Does it accomplish what it promises? In what ways not it succeed and/or fail? There can be a great idea that has no chance of working.  We can point back to see the measurable effects?

This streams into the final step: does/can the worldview flourish with the realities of the human condition. Man has been around for a long time. We have observed the triumphs and the follies. A worldview could have great motivations and admirable goals, but if it cannot truly fix or address accurately the human condition, it cannot work.  Disagreements will still remain, but I believe that the arguments can be more fruitful.

More of the human condition later…