02 April 2010

Semantic Argument

Share
Yesterday a friend of mine posed this quandry on Facebook:
Studying expands knowledge, knowledge is power, power corrupts, corruption is a crime, crime doesn’t pay. Why study?

Sounds convincing. It took me a while to figure out what was wrong with it. We take on authority these definitions through concise maxims, and that is the problem.

Studying does not necessarily mean you will be a criminal. Studying can expand knowledge, but only if you study things you don't already know. Knowledge can give you power but only if you study things that exist. Power can corrupt, but only if you use it to serve yourself at the expense of others. Corruption is a crime unless you're a Liberal in which case it's a badge of honor. Crime is relative since we celebrate the High Treason of Adams, Jefferson, et al., when they declared their independence.

Study is study. Knowledge is knowledge. Power is power. Corruption is corruption. crime is crime. Why study? Well, as an educator, I have a personal vested interest in it, but I have also nothing to lose if you don't. I get paid whether you study or not, but I am interested in your success. You can be successful without studying or without a college degree, but you cannot succeed if you know nothing at all about anything. I have never seen that happen.

Studying can be worth your while. Sometimes it doesn't seem that way, but no matter what you feel or believe, the truth remains. Say all you want that 2+2=5, or that 1 does not equal 1, and while I agree with both, in the absence of more detail they are fallacious arguments to simply cast about without facts to support your argument.

No comments: