On Teapots and Toothpicks

I’ve been doing a bit of thinking lately. And a bit of laundry. But the question is this: which one is more consequential? Which, of course, leads to more thinking and less laundry. Eventually, I will end up without any clean clothes, but with quite a bit of thought.

But, since it looks like I won’t be washing any clothes, I might as well get the thinking out of the way. A utilitarian would likely answer my query with a resounding “Laundry!”, but an incorrigible sentimentalist such as myself has great difficulty accepting such a conclusion without some intense meditation. And, since the sentimentalist in question would be thinking and not washing clothes, the answer would be decided for them, regardless of their verdict.

Eventually, the said sentimentalist and the utilitarian would begin to bicker, and bickering would lead to squabbling, and squabbling would lead to quarreling, and eventually someone would most certainly be hit on the head with a tea pot. At this stage in the increasingly degenerate debate, I’m afraid that I must leave my bathos-ridden comrade and join the ranks of my hitherto fore rival. You see, dear, when debating becomes about the mere debating and not about something more, then our time is wasted. Even if one should win the debate, he gains nothing but a frustrated opponent and an inflated ego. Argument for the sake of argument is no better than a new refrigerator for the sake of a new refrigerator, or a vast quantity of toothpicks for the sake of a vast quantity of toothpicks.

What then, do I propose? To the former problem and this essay’s original topic: thought and Febreeze. To the latter problem: a new definition of victory. What if we started to argue… so that our opponents and our audience might benefit? What if we decided to fight amongst ourselves not when it makes us look intelligent or formidable, but when those around us would walk away from the experience enlightened? This is a radical idea, I know; it means no more ad hominem tactics, no more yelling, and no more leaving in a huff. It would require two or more people to discuss civilly a concept using such arcane methods as taking turns, conceding points, and appreciating another’s insight.

I propose a society where even the basest tiff resembles Plato’s Republic more than it resembles an ideological blitzkrieg or a particularly brutal method of slash-and-burn farming. I propose a society that listens as well as it speaks and values the ideas of others every bit as much as it values its own.

I know; such dreams aren’t likely to come true in my lifetime, or in anyone else’s lifetime, as long as people are still people. But I can still soliloquize, can’t I? And maybe, just maybe, the next person to hear this will walk away and, with a contented sigh, think, “You know, that was very civil and enlightening. Hmmm….”

Author's Note

True story: this was written on the inside of a dryer sheet box while sitting in a laundromat.