Argumentation: A Childish Game
To win in a logical
discussion is a childish game. You may not have experienced
anything, yet you can be a good logician. You may not know anything
at all about the truth, but you can argue well. That is a totally
different quality.
In Greece these people were called sophists. By and by they became
condemned; in the beginning they were respected just like the world
teachers of India. The work of the sophists was to argue and to
teach how to argue. And argument is simply a game, just like chess.
It has nothing to do with truth. Nobody has ever achieved truth
through argumentation. Yes, you can defeat somebody. You can even
defeat the person who may have experienced. If you are articulate
enough and can bring in language and logic in your support, there is
no difficulty. By the time Socrates arrived on the scene in Greece,
the sophists were everywhere. It was Socrates who condemned
sophistry. He said, I can argue from any side. You tell me to be for
God or to be against God: I can argue from any side, and I am going
to win." And he demonstrated it. He would argue from both sides and
he would win from both sides. And he said, "What is the meaning of
all this argumentation?"
I know it because it happened to me. While I was a student in the
university I loved only one game, and that was argument. I hated
every other game because all other games looked very childish. If
you know argumentation, then there is no game compared to it. And I
was going from one university to another university for debating,
for eloquence competitions.
In Nagpur University it happened.... Two people always used to go,
one person with me: one for and one against the subject. One, the
person who had gone to speak against the subject, suddenly became
sick. It was time to go to the university auditorium, and he had
diarrhea. He said, "It is impossible; I cannot make it, I cannot go.
I cannot remain even five minutes in the room and I have to run to
the bathroom - how am I going to wait there for three or four hours
continuously? And one never knows when our number is to come...
impossible."
So I said, "Don′t be worried. I will take care of it."
He said, "How are you going to take care of it?"
I said, "You will see."
I was for the subject. This was my approach always, that whoever was
going with me.... It was a competition first in the affiliated
colleges - you have to win in all the affiliated colleges - then the
university competition, your own university competition, you have to
win that. Then two people would be chosen. Then they have to decide
which one was going to be for, and the other would be against. It
was always troublesome because people wanted the stronger side.
With me it was never a problem. I always told them, "You choose the
side you want to be on, and the remaining one is mine."
"But," they said, "that never happens. People fight and then we have
to draw chits for and against, or we have to go to the
vice-chancellor to decide. With you it is so simple, you allow us
the choice. What is the secret?"
I said, "There is no secret. If you know how to argue, it does not
matter for what you are arguing. If you don′t know how to argue,
then too it does not matter."
I was speaking for. I spoke for, then it was the number of my
opposite colleague; his name was Karl. I stood up and went to the
opposite side. The vice-chancellor of Nagpur University was
presiding. He said, "What! You have just spoken for, and now you are
standing against?"
I said, "What can I do? The man who was to speak against is
suffering from diarrhea. It is not my fault, and for me there is no
problem."
"But," he said, "just now you have spoken for."
I said, "Yes, I have spoken for. Now listen to me speaking against
too. Just forget that I am the same person. Why bother about the
person? - you have to listen to the argument. Who is arguing should
not be your concern, your concern should be for the argument."
He said, "Okay."
I argued against. I won both the prizes. Against, I won the first
prize; for, I won the second prize. And I told the vice-chancellor,
"Look, what do you say now? Of course when I was arguing for
somebody else then I did my best. When I was arguing for myself, I
knew perfectly well that I was going to be first, so who bothers?
But I am neither for nor against; I am absolutely neutral. It is
just a game, and you are taking it so seriously."