Routine men, believing that ideas have qualitative substance, can think theirs correct and another’s fallacious. So by assuming they think that by arguing for their idea, (the right one), the person holding the erroneous idea can be persuaded to see-the-light-of-truth.
The light of truth is indiscriminate. That is: it shines on all ideas equally, and to the opened-eyed, reveals them for what they are: imaginary roaches.
In that ordinary men’s kitchen-minds consist entirely of these illusionary creatures, arguing in defense of yours is in essence an effort to make it appear that there is some sort of real substance to what is going on in your head.
Men have no actual, material “self” inside of them which produces their ideas of arguing. For them, arguing is an attempt to divert their attention from this, It-hurts-my-head-to-think-about-it fact. Thus, as everyday men argue over ideas they find in their minds, they pretend to one another to BE somebody – a somebody as evidenced by the ideas they have, and are prepared to argue over.
If a man believes he has won an argument – he wins what?
Another sick dog enticed back to his vomit?
J.