August 14, 2013

  • It is on a general ground very easy to criticize people/things/events/chess moves/anything base on general principle, but the problem of it is that it is not specific enough. Anybody can say anything, but being specific pays.

    In chess, players often fail to win positions they consider winning, and lose positions they consider drawing. They may have knowledge, but they don't have the skill.

    The critics of course do not have any responsibility to carry the burden of proof, for destruction itself can also be creation. We have to substantiate our points made in the critique by providing evidence, but the evidence and points themselves do not necessarily lead to solution.

    Solution is indeed important, because when we look at a certain problem, we don't look at one or two solutions but competing solutions. One problem should on theory have only one perfect solution, but in life there are always more than one way to do things.

    So when justifying an argument, we do so usually only in a way to justify the point made, but not the competing nature of problems/solution. More than likely the point raised can only serve to enforce the writer's view but not able to compete against the strength of other arguments. I think relatively, in order to reach a solution, we are not trying to affirm the negatives [which is to write a critique], but to disprove the positives [construct a viable solution and consistently disproves at the same time after knowing what's wrong], which is considerably more difficult, I presume.

    Also, the theological discussion cannot help solving the problem. Like when people break up, they don't ask what are the reasons for the break-up, they like to ask something like "What 's love", which tries to divert the attention other than tackling their own shitty personality or slutty nature of their worse-half.

    It's always advisable to rethink the value of definitions and points, see if they make much sense in helping you reaching a solution, acknowledging the bounds of discussion. After all most of the time people just try to have discussions to make themselves feel better, like they have done something by talking about it but actually they haven't.