The Ultimate Measure Of A Man...

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Although some make efforts to forget, those who do not forget become the lost tribe. – Pierre Mirbel

The mere fact that we do not engage in any debate about the facts of any matter shows how thin our rationality is.

We judge different things by different theories of cognition, assumptions of context and interpretation of situations. When it comes to understanding society and trying to understand the basics of social life, people tend to focus on cognitive theories, arguing that the cognitive dimensions of knowledge are relevant to knowledge about social and political contexts. The cognitive aspects of reality are to be discussed on a different level than those aspects of knowledge about social and political relationships. Our cultural knowledge is focused on such issues. If one were to try to explain social situations by cognitive theories of reasoning, one would have to explain how people think differently in situations of conflict or disagreement. In such situations, there are cognitive conflicts about the nature of reality, which is far from the reality that emerges in simple processes of interacting. A cognitive issue is not a matter of reasoning, but of the way that people think about reality.

Arguments for tolerance are very simple. They involve differences that are cognitive and logical. When we interact, we believe in different experiences and judgments, with a debate on what really happened in certain situations. We have cognitive debates over situations that involve arguments, debates and discourses. We differ on judgments of situations in simple situations, which are cognitive in the sense that we disagree over the nature of the events and the outcome. The debate is not cognitive, but rather cognitive about how we view the results. The contrast is not merely one of theories and explanations, but one of the different processes of understanding the world that are applied in those situations. In such situations, there is not a debate about what happened or why, but about where we stand in relation to that and about the possible cognitive processes involved in our decisions. Because we try to explain the logic of our judgments, we should be able to explain how we really think and explain the underlying cognitive processes.

Of course, explanations are complicated. In many cases, there is more than one possibility of the causes of events, which are in conflict. Then there is a debate about those possibilities. At the very least, there should be a debate that covers both possibilities, which do not represent competing theories but scenarios that are more related. In many situations, a debate on situations and attitudes cannot be explained by a cognitive argument. In situations of disagreement, the processes involved in reasoning are complicated, and it is necessary to explain the causes of both explanations.

The most basic issue is that of knowing situations and how people behave in situations. Whether there is discussion and disagreement about situations or situations themselves can be discussed in theories of how people think, how conflicts come about, how people disagree about actions and the consequences of actions. The debate can also involve explanations of how people should behave and justify what they do, but these are not related to conversations about what people are thinking, talking and considering.

The complexities are the sum of a difference in perspectives. That difference is a core contradiction of rationality and it determines how we try to understand issues. There are two basic conflicts between different perspectives and we are concerned with their outcome and what aspects of reality are affected by that conflict.

1. Certain aspects of reality are perceived by people as different. For example, perceptions of reality depend on what things are and the meanings of words. In that case, people believe in different things and people relate to objects differently. That is how people develop different perceptions of what is real and what is not. It is how people evaluate and explain differences and how we develop differences of judgment and approach issues. The same concerns what we call situations.

2. In certain situations, we do not understand the specific concepts of arguments. Even in situations where there is debate about the reality of situations, we do not understand specific arguments or debates. In such situations, the dialogue about certain aspects of reality ends with opposing arguments, judgments and attitudes.

3. In some situations, the way people argue and agree about what they believe in simple situations conflicts with the way they think and understand other situations. That conflict does not result in different theories or arguments, but in differences in the fundamental perspective on the role of situations in which people have contrasting views. That is the most basic conflict that emerges when people Want To.