One of the most tremendous errors within the realm of debate has been the failure of individuals to examine the principles which guide their opponent's or proponent's expressed opinions.
What's more, there is often a cloud of ignorance cast upon the unstated, oft-undiscovered and -untouched capacity for individuals to hold steadfastly to principle in a consistent, universal sense or otherwise in manners which operate to his usually-unexplained advantage.
In this sense then, one is capable of entertaining his theoretical ideals while living out, or according to, another set altogether.
Beyond this, there is seemingly a dynamism of belief whereby individuals may adjust their rules, as a function of philosophical maturity, receipt of new information, or a change of circumstances.
Therefore, one's speech is often translated too literally, too rigidly, with the false assumption of complete rationality, or rather the assumption of knowledge, experience or exposure which may not apply to the given orator.
In this sense once again, the assessor finds that not all opinions are equal or wholly valid, that each of them operates from a wobbly structure of incomplete or dogmatic understandings.
Beyond this recurring failing, the presenter often falls victim to his own limited vocabulary, struggling across radii of deviations from the most cogent characterization of his own thoughts.
And all the while, the speaker appears convicted while moving toward a future which may eventually realize a reversal of projected thought, but by then the social damage will have already been done.
For this very reason, it is important to evaluate a person's ideas before being distracted by their packaging or the physical apparatus which bears them.
What's more, there is often a cloud of ignorance cast upon the unstated, oft-undiscovered and -untouched capacity for individuals to hold steadfastly to principle in a consistent, universal sense or otherwise in manners which operate to his usually-unexplained advantage.
In this sense then, one is capable of entertaining his theoretical ideals while living out, or according to, another set altogether.
Beyond this, there is seemingly a dynamism of belief whereby individuals may adjust their rules, as a function of philosophical maturity, receipt of new information, or a change of circumstances.
Therefore, one's speech is often translated too literally, too rigidly, with the false assumption of complete rationality, or rather the assumption of knowledge, experience or exposure which may not apply to the given orator.
Beyond this recurring failing, the presenter often falls victim to his own limited vocabulary, struggling across radii of deviations from the most cogent characterization of his own thoughts.
And all the while, the speaker appears convicted while moving toward a future which may eventually realize a reversal of projected thought, but by then the social damage will have already been done.
For this very reason, it is important to evaluate a person's ideas before being distracted by their packaging or the physical apparatus which bears them.
Comments
Post a Comment