Blog Post #3--Brookfield's “Discussion as a Way of Teaching”
After reading this article I definitely see the benefit to the procedure it described. I often have a hard time when arguing with people because we usually come from very different places. I've always been welcoming of ideological diversity of thought, but lose my patience easily when confronted with an overabundance of compassion. I don't have anything against compassion, in fact I employ it within my own thought constantly, but I see struggle as a way to breed strength. My compassion takes a different turn here. I believe that exposing people to struggle will be most beneficial for them in the long run. This theory has proven true time and time again in my own life.
In a broad sense this article focuses on dialectics, which is a topic I've only recently come across. I appreciate the idea that common ground between two or more parties is valuable, especially for social progression, but I must admit it goes against my nature to sacrifice my personal conviction- which is necessary to produce any form of compromise. I keep having the feeling that following these guidelines would be more for show than anything else. Realistically people don't think with their heads alone, they think with their emotions, and anybody who is using emotion to fuel their argument will make the entire process compromised. I know, I know... this is some meta level devil's advocate stuff. I constantly find myself playing devil's advocate. I don't trust group think. I think the individual mind is far more powerful than the group mind as a general rule. In any form of group thought there is some form of manipulation, malicious or otherwise. Kindness is born from the desire to manipulate. This isn't necessarily bad, it just makes me skeptic. Of course I want people to get along, but for me that means accepting each other's differences and respecting each other's freedoms. Dialectics disturb me on a very basic level because it is based on the necessity to sacrifice the individual identity. The individual is the building block of the group, and should be treated as the most valuable unit of society- yet it often is not. Group thought has led to discrimination against the individual frequently throughout history. It still happens all the time. I don't want to reject the group outright, but I don't want to be a part of any group which doesn't value personal liberty and freedom of thought and disagreement. In today's social climate any who disagree with the status quo are demonized and subsequently ostracized. This has also been a frequent historical phenomenon. I don't claim to know all the answers, and I don't trust anybody who does. I don't think truth is attained by group think. I believe group think creates a fabrication that becomes accepted as truth. Humans are simply not capable of perceiving the whole truth, and to pretend otherwise is delusional. I want to employ the skills from the article, but my trust issues will most likely make my participation consist of nothing more than a facade.
Although, I can still appreciate input when it is genuine. I see value in listening to others and thinking over their words. I do not want to discount these individual's ideas, as their perspective is equal to mine. It is a fine line to tread, and I believe it can only be done successfully when there is a sense of mutual respect between all parties involved.
After reading this article I definitely see the benefit to the procedure it described. I often have a hard time when arguing with people because we usually come from very different places. I've always been welcoming of ideological diversity of thought, but lose my patience easily when confronted with an overabundance of compassion. I don't have anything against compassion, in fact I employ it within my own thought constantly, but I see struggle as a way to breed strength. My compassion takes a different turn here. I believe that exposing people to struggle will be most beneficial for them in the long run. This theory has proven true time and time again in my own life.
In a broad sense this article focuses on dialectics, which is a topic I've only recently come across. I appreciate the idea that common ground between two or more parties is valuable, especially for social progression, but I must admit it goes against my nature to sacrifice my personal conviction- which is necessary to produce any form of compromise. I keep having the feeling that following these guidelines would be more for show than anything else. Realistically people don't think with their heads alone, they think with their emotions, and anybody who is using emotion to fuel their argument will make the entire process compromised. I know, I know... this is some meta level devil's advocate stuff. I constantly find myself playing devil's advocate. I don't trust group think. I think the individual mind is far more powerful than the group mind as a general rule. In any form of group thought there is some form of manipulation, malicious or otherwise. Kindness is born from the desire to manipulate. This isn't necessarily bad, it just makes me skeptic. Of course I want people to get along, but for me that means accepting each other's differences and respecting each other's freedoms. Dialectics disturb me on a very basic level because it is based on the necessity to sacrifice the individual identity. The individual is the building block of the group, and should be treated as the most valuable unit of society- yet it often is not. Group thought has led to discrimination against the individual frequently throughout history. It still happens all the time. I don't want to reject the group outright, but I don't want to be a part of any group which doesn't value personal liberty and freedom of thought and disagreement. In today's social climate any who disagree with the status quo are demonized and subsequently ostracized. This has also been a frequent historical phenomenon. I don't claim to know all the answers, and I don't trust anybody who does. I don't think truth is attained by group think. I believe group think creates a fabrication that becomes accepted as truth. Humans are simply not capable of perceiving the whole truth, and to pretend otherwise is delusional. I want to employ the skills from the article, but my trust issues will most likely make my participation consist of nothing more than a facade.
Although, I can still appreciate input when it is genuine. I see value in listening to others and thinking over their words. I do not want to discount these individual's ideas, as their perspective is equal to mine. It is a fine line to tread, and I believe it can only be done successfully when there is a sense of mutual respect between all parties involved.
Comments
Post a Comment