A debate: "practical and normal" vs "unique and theoretical" person

This isn't 100% finished, but it's already touches several intresting aspects about life: Why to be a practical person(and why not), why to do things your way(and why not), and more.

Aksofozitzih:

 

A is the "unique and theoretical" person, and B is the "practical and normal" person. Here's a short description of the two to understand better the debate:

 

A is someone who is good at thinking abstractly and thinking about practical things only bores him to death. He plans his life very very very slowly as his sees so many things he can do with himself and doesn't know what to choose. He's so slow that from the "practical" perspective it looks from the side like he's doing with himself pretty much nothing, although he's actually very diligent with making theories about what he should do with is life.

 

B is a person who despises abstractly thinking(not that he despises thinking in general), in life he is super practical, all of his planning in life on based on big practical goals. While he doesn't advance very fast into his goals, he's always in deed. There are so many practical things he likes to do(and/or things he thinks will advance him into his big goals) that he doesn't even care that much what is the practical things he does - what's important for him is to always do practical things.

 

Setting:

 

Both persons are in their home(their parents home), in Israel and are jews. A is doing a small job as part of his commitment at home - washing dishes. B is eating right behind him and he gets mad at A for always doing his job so slowly. A says it's better than being like B. Than B is insulted and..

 

Let the debate begin:

 

B: Maybe I'm not very smart and talented, but at least I try my best, find strategies to overcome my difficulties, gets myself into many frameworks and takes seriously every single one of them. You, on the other hand, are a baby. You can't initiate anything on your own and do things beyond things any baby can do. You give up on anything that requires even the slightest effort. You have no self-confidence and anyone can step on you without even trying.

 

A: Assuming you're right, do you think being a baby is so bad? Or maybe I just do things much slower than other people to make sure my future will be exactly as I want it to be?

 

B: You're not planning anything! Just like a baby. You're not developing at all, and you never will until you will realize that only you are responsible for your life and that you need to put effort for anything you want and that theoretical thinking is stupid and pointless.

 

A: But what's the point on focusing on doing things that require effort if I don't even know *what* I want do in my life in general? 1st of all I do small practical things to try experiencing anything in the world that interest me without having to focus on a single thing that I probably don't care much about. Theoretical studies help me much more than any practical study for that.

 

B: Who the hell needs to know what *he* wants so well? First of all do the practical things that anyone does as a teenager and young adults in our country. Re-complete all your bagruts(final tests in school) Join the military, learn a practical degree at the university, get a job with good money, find a girlfriend, get married and have kids and raise them. After you finish at least most of that you will already be a happy person in general. Initiate things that are worth initiating! What are you initiating? Nothing! Aside from theoretical nonsense that you even have the nerve to call "acts". You can choose what you want to do in the military, which girlfriend to take and which degree to learn and which job to work at. Isn't that enough?

 

A: From what I understand, you think that the social norms that you mentioned are the "most basic and important productivity". Guess you called me a baby because you see I never even started to do any of what you mentioned. I've got some news for you: No, what you mentioned isn't enough at all.  There are so many justified reasons not to want to do any of those things. You think I'm a baby just because I refuse to live like a robot?

 

B: I think that humans in general are pretty robotic and none can be so special. You don't have to be "100% normal" as there's no such thing anyway, but you need to go in logical routes. The majority, if not all those reasons are only theoretical and don't give alternative solutions other than "don't do it" so there's no reason to care about them.

 

A: So you're trying to say I'm trying special in a way that's way too far-fetched and simply impossible?

 

B: Precisely.

 

A: But you must think you know what I think I'm running after, don't you? Otherwise you wouldn't be so confident that I'm not doing anything with myself.

 

B: Yes. You're just trying to prove that you're the smartest person ever with your dumb theories. In reality, you're not truly trying to advance anywhere, you actually have the never to almost completely ignore the "practical world", convincing yourself that it will give you nothing. All theories other than specific and practical scientific ones are stupid and pointless. They don't help change the world in any way. The only reason some people even bother to make whole degrees on stupid theoretical subjects like philosophy, coaching etc is because they are too pathetic to learn any serious subject. The real study is always in the "practical world" and all worthy achievements are in the "practical world".

 

A: But why? When a person is born, does all their enjoyment and happiness comes from practical products that they're not capable of creating themselves anyway? Also, you're a religious person. Does feeling good from believing in god equals feeling good as a result from a practical product? Does feeling good from watching something on TV or playing a computer game equals that? etc..

 

B: While it's true that there are non-practical things that can make us feel good, those are things with *imaginary* benefit. They don't give *true* benefit, they just make us feel good for a moment. It's not conflicting anything I said.

 

A: I'll explain something about life. There's no "absolute" meaning to life. We were just thrown into this world without asking for it and without having clear directions as to what should we do. Those who build those directions in us in our youth are our parents.  Even if there's god who gives us directions in life like in the bible, we were not given a justified reason to listen to him other one reason, which is also the only reason for non-religious people to live: We live only once. We only have one chance in this world. So we want to exploit our time here as much as possible. That's why people are never happy to die at any point in their lives unless they feel sure enough that most of what they know in this world is horrible and disappointing. In either case, my point is that there's no reason to life the "practical world" so much more than the "theoretical world". There's no justified reason to prefer one of them over the other expect for the trend which is the blind belief that our senses never mislead us - the senses that apparently show us all the "practical products".

 

B: But in the practical world all achievements are measureable. You don't have tools to measure anything in the "theoretical world". Everything there is completely subjective. There's no well-agreed trend there about how to measure staff.

 

A: Correct. And that's exactly why it's so awesome. We can't use something we were born with to judge things in that world. None is wrong and none is right. It's a huge game where we can reinvent in countless ways without limit.

 

B: But that's a babyish attitude! A grown up person would understand that he needs to get himself into a framework with well-defined rules that are based on facts. You prefer to live with your speculations because you find it comfortable.

 

A: No, actually EVERYTHING is subjective. Even rules that are based on facts(I suppose you meant facts that are based on the blind belief to our senses) are also based on personal interruption. I think it's actually you who is stuck in the practical because it's comfortable for you to live in a world with a well-agreed "fact". You just don't like the fact that there's no facts. That's why you refuse to accept my ways.

 

(This won't end here. I'll add more soon. But it's already really intresting and I will be glad to hear your thoughts on this one).

 

Author's Note

How much do you like this style of writing? I'm also curious to hear which side you tend to agree with.

Reviews

[Davidgeo]

You randomly switch between masculine and gender neutral a lot. I find it distracting but that's my personal taste.

Also, commas.... you forget to use them sometimes.

As for the content this is a very oversimplified argument. Typing people like that is often pure projection of the author. The vast majority of people are a little of both (and ten million other things, no one is a straight caricature). Throughout history a lot of the most pragmatic thinkers were also artists in their own right. George Patton wrote excellent poetry and was an accomplished author for more than just battle tactics. Napoleon was a lover of art and education, some say his obsession with Egypt was purely based on his love of historical romance and greatness. This reads like an ill informed conversation between a teenager. In the movie Donnie Darko Patrick Swayze's character is a motivational speaker who classifies everything as either a product of love or fear, this reminded me of that. The form of the argument anyway. Materialism vs blah blah blah....