Sometimes words hurt more than actions
“Beliefs don’t change facts. Facts, if you’re reasonable should change your beliefs” – Rick Gervais
“If Ideas are strong they can stand criticism” – Salman Rushdie
The heading of the post is an age old Indian concept. I first heard it from my manager during a personality development training. Both Samvaad and Vivaad are words of Sanskrit origin.
“If Ideas are strong they can stand criticism” – Salman Rushdie
The heading of the post is an age old Indian concept. I first heard it from my manager during a personality development training. Both Samvaad and Vivaad are words of Sanskrit origin.
Samvaad can be translated to words like dialogue, parley & communication. Vivaad is dispute or controversy. Both of these have a great relevance in the present age of social media, where everyone’s voice can be heard all over the world. There are debates all over the comments section of every news article, a youtube video, a Facebook post or a tweet. Though both Samvaad and Vivaad happen in every debate. Samvaad is the only necessary thing. Vivaad is equivalet of trolling someone on the internet. Samvaad is something only a wise and matured person can do. Where as Vivaad is an animalistic behaviour. In simple language its the difference between discussion and an argument.
I’ve borrowed some content from Wikipedia to give a little broader classification.
Vada, the honest debate
Vada, the good or honest debate, is constituted by the following characteristics:
- Establishment (of the thesis) and refutation (of the counter-thesis) should be based upon adequate evidence or means for knowledge (pramana) as well as upon (proper) hypothetical or indirect reasoning (tarka).
- The conclusion should not entail contradiction with any tenet or accepted doctrine (siddhanta).
- Each side should use the well-known five steps of the demonstration of an argument explicitly.
- They should clearly recognise a thesis to be defended and a counter thesis to be refuted.
Jalpa, the bad debate
Jalpa is defined in Nyayasutra as a debate where, among the stated characteristics of the first type of debate, only such characteristics as would seem appropriate would be applicable. In addition, the debater can use, for the establishment of his own position and for the refutation of the opponent’s thesis, such means as quibbling, illegitimate rejoinders and any kind of clincher. Three kinds of quibbling are listed, twenty-four kinds of illegitimate rejoinders and twenty-two kinds of clinchers.
Vitanda, the wrangling debate
The third debate mentioned in the Nyayasutra is called vitanda, which has sometimes been translated as wrangling. It is defined as a debate where no counter-thesis is established. In other words, the debater here tries to ensure victory simply by refuting the thesis put forward by the other side. It is sometimes claimed to be a type of bad debate, for the only goal is victory, as in the second type, and the use of such trickery as quibbling and illegitimate rejoinder is allowed.
There is no Vada anymore there is only Jalpa or Vitanda.
In ancient India, scholars regularly engaged in Vaada. This was a way to broaden the horizons, learn another perspective and come to a common conclusion on any given topic. The whole purpose of the exercise is to learn, not to Win. In today’s are, the trolls win a lot of battles but they all lose the war against ignorance. If this post is spotted by these cyber bullies, I’m sure I’ll have to see a lot of insults in the comments section. This is not limited to social media and other internet platforms. This happens in real life interactions, can be seen in News channels and also the reality shows.
I’m not saying you have to be politically correct. It is not possible to be politically correct if you are having a passionate discussion. Be blunt, straightforward, in the face, aggressive.
Be blunt is stating the truth, be straightforward with your ideas, Stare the topic in the fact, attack it. But don’t attack the person making the counter argument. One way to avoid this is not to take things personally. Do not get offended if you are being proved wrong, resisting it is fine but evading it will only leave you less informed that you would have been if you continued the discussion.
India, the topic of the decade has been Narendra Modi. Just the mention of his name can give rise to a never ending argument. This debate even lead some new words to be added to the urban dictionary of India. Modi is Feku, Rahul gandhi is Pappu, supporters of AAP are aaptards and supporters of Modi are Bhakts. Calling names was old school so the millennials started making up new ones. Some names like Internet Hindus which were coined as an insult are now worn as a badge of honour. In not one of these debates, have I seen a person accept that his perception was wrong even when there was sufficient evidence presented to refute them. The whole process involves only defending of once own opinion. So what’s wrong with correcting one self? Wouldn’t it be a self improvement exercise?
When I see a group of people debating online or in person. I’m always reminded of a wonderful show on MTV called Yo Mama. May be I’ve grown too old understand the present generations, may be this is the way of the world now. But for the greater good, I hope it is just a short-term phenomenon.
Random thoughts of a confused primate 