There are numerous habits that are devastating in terms of their effects on man. One of them, which one would not wish on one’s worst enemy, is the habit of ‘winning’ arguments. This can be so addictive that very soon every discussion becomes all about winning – winning every day, winning at all costs, winning against anybody, and winning in the imaginary world if it cannot be achieved in the real one.
Truth and reason could go take a hike, as far as somebody disposed to this vice is concerned. For when such a man finds that reason is against him, it is only a matter of time before he turns against reason, and with a vengeance.
This type of man would go to any length to satisfy his craving for victory. If it takes an imaginary conversation in the shower or ‘reported’ on the social media, with a real or an imaginary adversary whose argument is shred to pieces in spectacular fashion rendering him speechless, so be it. If it takes demolition of a primary-school-kid level argument for him to feel good about himself, so be it. If it requires straw man (subtle oversimplification of the opponent’s case or blatant misrepresentation of his arguments) to enable the addict to enjoy sound sleep, so be it. Anything is kosher if it can lead to a self-proclaimed victory.
Labelling of the opponent (‘Liberal’, ‘Rationalist’, ‘Hadees-rejector’, and what have you) is a handy resource in this man’s arsenal. It helps him announce victory without having to exercise his mind. This makes the life of the ‘victor’ considerably easier, though the fact of the matter is that more often than not people’s positions are too nuanced to be expressed by these convenient labels. The mechanism for this sort of self-deception is this: The man first places some convenient boxes in his mind: one of them encompassing all the ‘sound’ beliefs (that is, his own views and those held by his favourite people); and the others making up different varieties of ‘incorrect’ beliefs. Each time he hears an opposing viewpoint, he is quick to dump it (without any deliberation whatsoever) into one or the other of the condemned boxes. He is in such a hurry to announce victory that it never occurs to him that the view could very well be one he does not have a box prepared for in advance.
Self-righteousness is therefore an integral constituent of the psyche of this sort of man. A tell-tale sign of it is the irrepressible anger at those who dare not see eye to eye with him on any given issue. This rage is often extremely thinly disguised as sarcasm employed to make fun of the opposing view and the man holding it. This sorry attempt at humour is the unmistakable death knell for the project of the pursuit of truth. It is confirmation of the fact that the desire for winning quickly, for winning by hook or by crook, and for all the glory associated with that victory has completely got the better of a man’s reason.
There is no denying that we are all partial to the world view we open our eyes to. The narrative one hears till coming of age naturally sounds very convincing on account of its familiarity. In comparison, other narratives on the same issue sound strange owing to their unfamiliarity. Since all of us must start our journeys as babies completely at the mercy of our elders and the environment at large, coming into our own only gradually and over a period spanning years, this could not have been any different. A significant part of being educated, however, is cultivation of the ability to be objective; that is, the capability of periodically revisiting one’s arguments and conclusions to see if they hold up to critical scrutiny. Similarly, the capacity to consider, sympathetically and honestly, views differing from one’s own, to see if there is any good in them. Even if one ultimately ends up rejecting such a view, it must be after considering it so painstakingly and stating it so precisely that the opponent (though he still disagrees with you) cannot help acknowledging that even he could not have presented his own stance any better.
The required attitude, provided one’s goal happens to be the pursuit of truth as opposed to petty one-up-man-ship, was best expressed by Imam Shafi’i. (I paraphrase:) I am convinced that I am right on a given issue but at all times acknowledge the possibility of being misguided. I am equally convinced that my opponent is wrong on the same issue, but at all times acknowledge the possibility that he may be right (end of paraphrase). This frame of mind not only prevents a man from becoming cocky enough to ridicule and/or dismiss out of hand the opinions of others, but also makes the continual re-evaluation of his own arguments his second nature. This enables him to change his mind when he is convinced that the change is warranted. Since it is guidance that was his objective all along, he does not see it as some sort of a defeat. Vanquishing anybody in argument never being his goal, changing his views for the better is a definite step forward for him.
This, admittedly, is easier said than done. But if somebody told you that a life committed to striving for truth and guidance was easy, he was lying.
