Argument

The beginning of the year, although an arbitrary marking, is frequently a time for people to reflect and reassess their lives. It's a time to set goals, and perhaps let some old ones go. There are those of us, however, who almost neurotically assess and reassess ourselves - constant conscious questioning and examining of the self and how it interacts with the world. It's a level of introspection that I wouldn't necessarily wish upon anyone, though it does have its benefits.
One of the benefits I've found is the ability to see multiple sides of an argument, as well as being able to make reasonable predictions about how the involved personalities will bounce off of each other. Coming to the understanding that there is no wrong or right, that such terms are frequently meaningless, and that the emotional needs of those involved need to be addressed first are all important lessons. I'm referring to emotional argument here, logical argument has an entirely different set of rules.
The troubles come when people get them confused. I recall being with a girl and having her show me a television news show she liked. I started analyzing the show aloud - as with most news shows, my analysis was not favorable. She took my analysis rather personally and was very irritated with me, almost to the point of refusing to talk to me for the rest of the evening. I consider it a learning experience. She was trying to share something with me, and my way of response was to try and show her I was taking it seriously and paying attention. My logical dissection of the show had nothing to do with how I felt in regards to her, but that's not how she saw it. She felt personally attacked. Obviously, we weren't a good match for each other in this regard.
Alternately, a tactic I have seen used in emotional arguments is to find some flaw in a factual claim and attack it: "I didn't call you that name all the time - it was only twice! How can you claim I attack you all the time? Is twice all the time?" The precise number of times is an irrelevant point, or rather it should be. It is the feeling of being attacked that needs to be addressed, not further squabbling over epithet statistics. That kind of response only makes things worse by exacerbating the hurt and attacked feelings.
These things are on my mind for a couple of reasons. I've been helping my mother through some issues that have come up in her life (the second example is a variation from an argument in that instance). I've also recently begun to date someone after significant time away from the dating scene, and so I've been ruminating over lessons I can take from prior dating experience. That's my self-reflection for this new year's day.
I am excellent at logical argument. Fleet on my intellectual feet, I am well-versed in logical fallacy, human psychological error, and have a relatively broad knowledge base. I love a good challenge, and can admit when I'm wrong while always savoring the chance to learn more. I am an emotional arguing lightweight. I deal with it very well in my professional life, I have to and my level of involvement is different. In my personal life, this has not been the case. I need space to sort through things and have been emotionally pummeled into submission when someone I cared about was of a mind to do such a thing. Of course, those kinds of relationships don't work either.
I have found a way out - a phenomenal coping technique. Arguing style is very important, as is setting ground rules. Ultimately, trusting and caring for your partner/parent/friend/whatever even while being pissed off at them is what will carry you through. Putting the needs of another above my own, even when I'm angry and hurt, creates the necessary space. Then I have room to find my voice and sort through the issues. Putting myself second, trusting enough that I will get through unharmed, lets my care for the other come first. We can come back to my needs later when it's a more appropriately effective time to work on them. Of course, this assumes the other party involved ultimately wants a healthy and equal relationship - a rather large assumption.

Cheers!

New year, new blog, same me

Hello out there. In a way, that feels like a small child standing on the precipice, screaming out into a vast chasm so large that its form can't be deduced, or even inferred. In another way, that's a comforting thought.
This blog exists because I've recently rediscovered the joys of sorting out my thoughts and feelings via the written word. Many thanks go out to the lovely lass who inspired me in this. As this is my first post, I should lay out a bit about myself. I am an atheist and a skeptic. I prefer to identify as an atheist (as opposed to an agnostic) for a specific reason, though both terms are accurate. I don't believe in a god, rather than believing in no god - a subtle but important distinction. Through popular usage, the term "agnostic" has been watered-down from it's original meaning (that metaphysical claims, up to and including the existence of a deity, are essentially unknowable) into a stance of the worst kind of non-committal intellectual shrug. Similarly, atheism has been mischaracterized as an ideological bent against god or a specific religion, every bit as dogmatic as the religions which they decry, which is not necessarily true. Certainly, there are both kinds of people using both titles. My own stance is to follow the evidence to whatever degree of certainty it may allow, and to fill in the blanks with the appropriate "I don't know." In other words, my epistemology dictates my ontology. The evidence, thus far in our exploration of it, doesn't say much regarding how all of this (Life, The Universe, and Everything, to borrow a book title) began. It doesn't indicate an intelligent designer, specifically one who is intensely interested in human life. Therefore, atheism is the term closest to my own worldview.
Regarding the postmodernist viewpoint, I find it to be an inherently disingenuous position. While I appreciate that it has an acknowledgment of human fallibility and of uncertainty, both highly important concepts, it loses traction with me when it fails to allow for an ability to develop any kind of hierarchy of certainty. There seems to be an underlying concept of "Well, you can't really know anything other than that you exist." True enough, as anyone who is familiar with Descartes' conclusion to his methodological doubt (cogito ergo sum), can tell you. However, this does not mean that everything is equally unknowable, or that one can't make reasonable judgments and predictions based upon evidence.
As an example of this, I have had many discussions with my father and his wife regarding evolution versus intelligent design. The stance they keep falling back upon is that both are ideas created by man, and man is fallible due to his having to perceive everything, and because of that we can't really know anything. My response is that evolution is backed by multiple independent lines of evidence, has made many predictions that have turned out to be true, and has changed over time to increasingly fit the evidence, thus expanding upon its explanatory power. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has not withstood the rigors of logic and evidence, even to the point of losing in court (the Dover trial). Their response, which I have encountered many times and ways from postmodernists and is highly indicative of deceptively black and white thinking, is "well, you can't really know anything." The inability to know anything to a metaphysical degree of certitude does not necessitate all ideas being equal. Still, I consider myself lucky that my only daddy issue is that he's a postmodernist and I'm a skeptic. We otherwise get along great.
I have many other interests including music, psychology, medicine, working out, and my cats (yes, I am one of those guys). I'll save those topics for other posts.

Happy New Year!