The need for dialogue and argument:
Dialogue
serves as the oxygen in the cultural survival and evolution of any society. It
is the social tool through which social attitudes, new trends, changes,
problems and challenges facing society can be understood and understood. It is
then decided in which direction to continue this new thing and if it is
intended to be stopped, how to stop it. The same dialogue takes place at the
intellectual level, at the public level and at the level of the government.
Dialogue is basically based on argument. Argument itself sets the rules for
debate. The death or non-use of argument in any society is no less than a
severe crisis. Our problem is not that we do not argue or that we do not have
the power of dialogue. Collectively, we are probably the most debated. If you
go to an office, a shop or a hotel, you will see people arguing. Our TV is the
biggest center of discussion. Social media is the biggest factory of
discussion. But in all the centers of our debate, crooked debate does not reach
the level of dialogue and things are seen in the mirror of personal likes,
dislikes and prejudices. In such a case, even if the argument is discussed, the
Ad-Hominem style of response will come from the other side. Ad-Hominem is the
style of discussion in which someone is answered on the basis of personal
feeling instead of argument. For example, if a wife asks her husband to give
split AC in her daughter's dowry, instead of giving any argument, the husband
says how many split ACs did your father give you in dowry? Will also appear here.
When any of their policies are criticized, they will go back to the previous
governments and mention what such and such a government has done in this
regard. You will find our whole society caught up in this ad-hoc dialogue. As a
result, our intellectual discourse does not seem to be moving forward from its
inception. One is the real or rational intellectual tendency, which you may
call the global intellectual tendency, and the other is our traditional
'cultural intellectual tendency'. We usually live under the same traditional
‘cultural-intellectual tendency’ while very rarely do we turn to the rational
or real tendency. The problem arises when we have to switch from a traditional
'cultural thought' to a real 'thought' in a debate, then there is difficulty
and we cannot decide because each thought has its own argument. The debate ends
in a stalemate. The way 3D technology has come nowadays. You can watch 3D
division only by wearing special glasses. 3D division cannot be viewed without
special glasses. In fact, 3D glasses change the perception or perceptions of
your vision. There are no 3D glasses available in our social system to change
the perceptions of ideas, so we can only see things from our objective
perception, which is apparent. And the natural consequence is that we are
forced to draw the wrong conclusion from this debate. Only by expanding
perceptions or perceptions can we understand the 3D of a vision. It is
unfortunate that our education system is so focused on memorization that the
possibilities for any kind of creativity are limited. If there is no creativity
now, then what is the need for anyone to think of something new, so our
education system is busy creating the poor of the line. Nor did anyone in our
education system try to teach logic and aesthetics. When the nation does not
understand only logic and aesthetics, how will it understand the good argument
and how will it know the feeling beyond materialism. You should examine and
separate the top three classes of your education system and test their ethics.
In our education system, doctors, engineers and CSS are our top priorities and
only the highest minds of our society are successful in these fields. One day
if you go to a place like Dabgri Garden just for a review, you will see a market
set up by highly qualified doctors where the suffering humanity is being
tortured to death. Money is money and just making money is greedy and there is
no room for morality. If there is no money in one's pocket, no one can cure a
headache. The other two classes of people you can easily find in the NAB's list
of corrupt people. This proves that our education system seems to fail to teach
moral values. If our education system cannot raise the moral level of our
higher minds then What will affect the third level of mind? There are three
very important references to improving your perception. Reading a good book and
associating with knowledgeable people and using their words. And third, social
institutions like Hujra, Beithak, etc. There are no readers and no good
listeners. No one bothers to read a two or four page text, let alone a book.
While our rooms, our choppers and sitting rooms are not inhabited like in the
past where serious and knowledgeable people can get good listeners. There is so
much noise that all the good and bad voices are mingled with each other. I
teach logic and aesthetics as a compulsory subject.
0 Comments