Teasing the hidden truth out of common-place observations
Yesterday, good friend and lapsed blogger @Primary_Red wrote a blogpost on the framework of a debate. He says that while most debates get caught in the arguments at human and institutional layers, the only layer which matters is the one of ideas. Here is the crux of his argument:
There was a lot of human suffering and institutional failure in Ashoka slaughtering Kalinga. Today, his Chakra is India’s national emblem. Not to diminish anyone’ suffering, but we don’t remember the names of those who died at his sword. We remember his embrace of Buddhism as a consequence. In the end, this big idea is all that mattered.
I believe that some ideas are better than others and, in time, they always prevail.
In my eyes, there are no better political ideas than secular democracy and free markets. All other ideas have had their moment in the sun, and they have always come up short. Always.
Regardless of how I feel at the human and institutional levels, ultimately the only question that really matters for me is this:
Will my argument advance secular democracy and free markets or set these winning ideas back?[SRI]
Read the complete post here.
Many of you will turn around and say what’s the big deal in what he is saying here. It is so blindingly obvious. Perhaps that is true. But Nicholas G Carr captures the bit about obvious explanation best.
The most memorable explanations strike us as alarmingly obvious. They take commonplace observations—things we’ve all experienced—and tease the hidden truth out of them. Most of us go through life bumping into trees. It takes a great explainer… to tell us we’re in a forest.[Edge]
That is precisely what @Primary_Red does. When you next make an argument or hear one, pause and think: Will my argument advance secular democracy and free markets or set these winning ideas back?
Ahh Pragmatic!
Nice writeup. I wish Bureaucrats were more like you :-
Reminded me of Rabrindra Nath Thakore’s
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls ….
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit…….
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
I have started my own fight in a small way. :-
http://hackmeifucann.blogspot.com/
Your help and good offices will be required if we are to get somewhere. For the good and well being of India (and finally the world).
Human race has evolved more through the power of ideas. This is one of the major reasons why history remains a heavily contested piece of ground. If history was a mere record of events and episodic, it is boring stuff. But, if we look at history as a story which tries to link the episodes into a coherent argument, it becomes interesting. Many a times, the power of episodes get expressed centuries later and thus we revisit the past to understand the present. To spot the idea is the work of intelligence and to spot the idea ahead of time is the work of genius. It is only when events unfold, we look for the seeds that got buried in the past. Present is and will always be the fruit of the past and so will be the case of future whose construct is happening right in front of our eyes. If we have among us those who are capable of moulding the present to steer us towards a better future, we would be a lucky generation. The soundest opinion may not emerge from the loudest of voices but such is the fate of democracy where numbers matter. If that be the case, how strong is the case for democracy vis-a-vis meritocracy?
Dear Pragmatic,
This is not a reply to the above post, but to a twitter post of yours. I do not have a twitter account and thought this might be a convenient place to reply. The twitter post was as follows:
“After Nepal and Ecuador, our own BSF also grounds Dhruv helicopters. http://bit.ly/yAsfSl”
Even assuming that this is a neutral observation and not a comment on ‘Dhruv’s performance’, I believe that you might have been more cautious in your research. The Ecuador crash was clearly identified as a pilot error by an Ecuadorian panel. The purported crash in Nepal was a hard landing; though this might look as splitting hairs, there is a distinction. Further the reasons for the hard landing and the BSF chopper crash have not been put out. Also it is standard procedure whenever a crash happens to institute a board of inquiry and ground the fleet if the numbers are small and if the machine can be withdrawn without affecting the operational performance of the outfit.
Further I would suggest that you also look at the figures for Mi-17 or derivative Mi-8 crashes as well as other medium and light helicopters, to get an idea of general accident rates, especially for a new product.
To therefore paint the BSF crash as another in a string of accidents for Dhruv, would only end up being a disservice to a great machine.
@Mike:
Point noted. Though my tweet was neutral.