Reconciliation

Love isn’t necessarily implicit in a situation, it can exist in revision as much as it can in the moment, well if you’ve a tendency to think out situations anyway, which most do. Value is a difficult thing to describe, what we’d give, what we’d trade, in some thoughts of commerce things have a value outside of their basic one, it exists to the individual, if I buy a shirt from you for $10 that’s the value of the exchange but to each of us, because we want the trade, the item is worth more, the shirt is worth $15 to me and the money is worth $15 to you. It’s a weird idea, but that’s why they say capitalism works. Economics is the laughing stock of the mathematical sciences, formulas that create a market don’t sit well with the greater faculties. Psychology for years was considered to be part of Humanities rather than the Sciences, it took a long time to prove the worth I suppose. I can’t stand it when people start citing Freud, even people who are just armchair psychologists know that the majority of his theories have been discredited. If I were to teach anything to my children in regards to academics it wouldn’t be a specific subject but the ground work to approach them, I’d teach the Scientific Method and the many Fallacies, Formal, Informal, Argumentative, Generalisation, the list is huge but just the first two give everything you need to approach learning in an intelligent and meaningful manner.

Brent and I have a fun game that developed naturally, well we think it’s fun, we’ve never discussed the rules or anything like that but we’re both aware of them. We can do it because we have a deep fundamental respect for one another, admiration even. We often just argue things simply for the joy of it, Brent is naturally contentious anyhow and he openly admits he enjoys dominating people in argument, I very rarely argue with people because I’m usually of the persuasion that it’s pointless, also a bit conceitedly I don’t argue in a way most people comprehend and so if I argued with them that way it would simply be me showboating, there’s no merit to a serious argument if one party is simply unable to understand, you might as well not say anything at all. However, on my end of the game Brent and I play I simply enjoy the challenge he offers, it keeps me sharp, we both use bespoke argumentative styles and we try not to deviate. He is without any doubt in my mind the superior arguer, the finest I’ve ever met bar perhaps Whatson but I haven’t spent enough time with him to tell yet. Because Brent is the superior arguer because it also just happens to be the style he likes he does have a handicap compared to me, it’s in the way he argues.

Brent uses Philosophy, Pseudohilosophy, Sophism and Rhetoric when we argue, he is a gifted speaker and his mind is very quick, he’s capable of juggling many arguments at once in a coherent and precise way, for me it’s like watching a highly skilled improvisational actor, it’s just amazing watching him. I have the easier side of things, I use Reason, Logic, Deduction and Intuition. The reason it works is because we don’t argue about things that we know a great deal about, it’s really more like debating, trying to convince the other party that ours is the best answer, whether it’s true or not.