Most debates, arguments, petty quarrels, fights and even wars are not about something we know for certain. I mean, I haven't heard two people debating on whether the sky is blue on a clear day. It is a definite truth, ofcourse we assume that our senses are feeding us the right information, but we dont have any other choice anyway. Most conflicts are about things we can not know for sure. Whether a patent should be granted or not, and if it should be, within what scope. Whether Kashmir should have been a part of India or Pakistan or should it have been independent. If you know that hindus and muslims can live together, kashmir should be a part of India and the whole creation of Pakistan was a waste of time, effort and lives. If on the other hand you know that hindus and muslims can not live together, then kashmir being a muslim majority state should be a part of pakistan and all the muslims of india should migrate to pakistan. It doesn't end all conflicts because we will still be neighbouring countries but atleast we would have solved that particular conflict. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that we can not know. We can only believe.
And belief is not knowledge. And you will not see someone passionate about his/her knowledge, but definitely about his/her beliefs. It is because unless (almost) everyone accepts the belief, it does not complete its transition to knowledge. And if people do not accept my belief, but actually believe in the opposite, then I am wrong. It is this 'If I am right you are wrong, if you are right I am wrong' concept that makes these beliefs a subject of so much passion. No one wants to be wrong. And the problem is that the most important issues in life haven't still made their transition from beliefs to knowledge. And so we keep fighting.
One way out of this, specially on an individual level, is the so called 'self-belief', where a person believes in his/her own thoughts. The philosophy of life here is - 'I am always right, and you are.... I don't care what you are, as long as you don't tell me that I am wrong. If you do then you are wrong'. It is good for people who are not quite bothered about true knowledge. For them feeling good is more important than being right. And they feel good because they believe that they are right. People hardly realise how much of their thought process is guided by their upbringing and if they were brought up somewhere else they would have been equally passionate about a conflicting idea. What if the whole culture they were brought up in is based on a belief, i.e. an assumption. But that is what most 'socially successful' people do. They make assumptions, form beliefs and move on. Because their objective is not knowledge, their objective is the objective of life, to be successful, in other words to be assert their genes. Isn't it all there is to life. In excelling in studies and work, in getting a good (good is a generic term and does not necessarily mean biologic good) partner, and raising successful kids. And what is this success measured by - 'How much they have been able to assert their genes?'.
The other way is for the knowledge seeker. A person who cares less about the assertion of his gene but more about what is truth. That is the path of skepticism. Start by doubting everything. If skillfully done it can shred any philosophical system to pieces. I know that still they have to start in self belief, but then skepticism comes to the rescue when their philosophy is under attack. When people start doubting your beliefs, you start doubting theirs. In this way you are both equally wrong, and in turn equally right. The philosophy is called 'If you are right then I am right, If I am wrong you are wrong'. There will still be conflicts, because at a certain point many of these beliefs will come face to face, especially when what direction should the world take is determined by what you believe in. Then there will be competition between different peoples. The stronger will survive while the weaker will either accept defeat and adopt the winner's beliefs or fight to annihilation.
But even in this, the winner will still remember. That it is his strength that won him the battle, not his beliefs. The stronger gene asserted itself. The weaker perished. Isn't that what has happenned all through history. The most prevalent beliefs are not because they were better, but because the people who believed in them won.
And belief is not knowledge. And you will not see someone passionate about his/her knowledge, but definitely about his/her beliefs. It is because unless (almost) everyone accepts the belief, it does not complete its transition to knowledge. And if people do not accept my belief, but actually believe in the opposite, then I am wrong. It is this 'If I am right you are wrong, if you are right I am wrong' concept that makes these beliefs a subject of so much passion. No one wants to be wrong. And the problem is that the most important issues in life haven't still made their transition from beliefs to knowledge. And so we keep fighting.
One way out of this, specially on an individual level, is the so called 'self-belief', where a person believes in his/her own thoughts. The philosophy of life here is - 'I am always right, and you are.... I don't care what you are, as long as you don't tell me that I am wrong. If you do then you are wrong'. It is good for people who are not quite bothered about true knowledge. For them feeling good is more important than being right. And they feel good because they believe that they are right. People hardly realise how much of their thought process is guided by their upbringing and if they were brought up somewhere else they would have been equally passionate about a conflicting idea. What if the whole culture they were brought up in is based on a belief, i.e. an assumption. But that is what most 'socially successful' people do. They make assumptions, form beliefs and move on. Because their objective is not knowledge, their objective is the objective of life, to be successful, in other words to be assert their genes. Isn't it all there is to life. In excelling in studies and work, in getting a good (good is a generic term and does not necessarily mean biologic good) partner, and raising successful kids. And what is this success measured by - 'How much they have been able to assert their genes?'.
The other way is for the knowledge seeker. A person who cares less about the assertion of his gene but more about what is truth. That is the path of skepticism. Start by doubting everything. If skillfully done it can shred any philosophical system to pieces. I know that still they have to start in self belief, but then skepticism comes to the rescue when their philosophy is under attack. When people start doubting your beliefs, you start doubting theirs. In this way you are both equally wrong, and in turn equally right. The philosophy is called 'If you are right then I am right, If I am wrong you are wrong'. There will still be conflicts, because at a certain point many of these beliefs will come face to face, especially when what direction should the world take is determined by what you believe in. Then there will be competition between different peoples. The stronger will survive while the weaker will either accept defeat and adopt the winner's beliefs or fight to annihilation.
But even in this, the winner will still remember. That it is his strength that won him the battle, not his beliefs. The stronger gene asserted itself. The weaker perished. Isn't that what has happenned all through history. The most prevalent beliefs are not because they were better, but because the people who believed in them won.
