For a long time now, I have noticed that our people argue over issues that are either fundamentally unsolvable, lack precise formulation, have lost their relevance, or are presented in a vague and ambiguous manner.
Kabul 24: Sometimes debates also arise over questions that have not been properly framed, and the entire dialogue, instead of being argument-based and methodical, proceeds with rhetorical and poetic language.
People, too, become excited not based on a critical examination of the questions and answers, but purely in accordance with their ideological and doctrinal inclinations, determining the winners and losers of these disputes.
All this stems from the fact that our society lacks knowledge of what a problem truly is, the logic of problems, the framework and problematics of issues, as well as the distinction between a problem and a pseudo-problem, and also the difference between solvable and unsolvable issues.
Last year, I primarily focused on the logic of scientific discovery, because the very “nature of science” is itself a problem.
Out of the six to seven thousand readers I have, I guess I have slightly changed the understanding of six or seven people on this topic, which is precious to me.From now on, for a while, I will focus on the problematics and logic of issues.
I will draw from the book Pseudo-Problems: How Analytic Philosophy Gets Done by Roy A. Sorensen, and I will also use ChatGPT 5.2 for editing and structuring the texts. I hope these will provide answers to the question of why we fight over nothing.
Jamshid Mehrpour
