This is an issue all true philosophers and scholars have to face sooner or later if he is actually seeking the truth and not pride or popularity. You have to be able to open up you mind to all ideas great and small, including those of you most hated enemies, and be able to admit when a stray practically random idea from an idiot is better than what you came up with.
In my time so far in this forum I have seen maybe two people who seem honestly open to new ideas; the rest just spout their ideas and try to cut every corner and pull every string to prove that everyone who disagrees is wrong. This is not the way to any kind of truth. The first question of an honest thinker should always be "am I wrong?" instead of "how is my opponent wrong?"
Every thought in your head could be way off, just like that chess move you made that lost the game when you were so certain you had it won. Chess can teach us that much at least: no matter how sure you are there's still a pretty good chance that you're wrong. But at least chess has a winner and a loser. In the end it only matters who was less wrong. This is not the case in philosophy; there, if you're wrong you're wrong, and any energy spent trying to prove that you are less wrong than someone else (e.g. right) is a waste.
Not that I'm saying that I am immune to this; I don't recall a single time when I admitted that I was wrong, at least not directly to the person who countered me. I think I will strive to to better at this, and try to be wrong at every oppertunity that comes my way.
... --- ...
Agreed, and this actually takes away from the debates here. This is because when someone gets boxed into a corner they have nowhere to go but insults. So we never have a winnner of a debate and that makes it less worthwile.
But I guess you can always tell yourself, if they've resorted to insults then I must've won. 😀
A favorite story of mine:
A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."
lol Nearly everyone here has a full cup!
Originally posted by ark13What do you win?
Agreed, and this actually takes away from the debates here. This is because when someone gets boxed into a corner they have nowhere to go but insults. So we never have a winnner of a debate and that makes it less worthwile.
But I guess you can always tell yourself, if they've resorted to insults then I must've won. 😀
Actually, you are speaking of a different senario than the one in my dream. You yearn for a good debate and are annoyed when no one wants to play by the rules. I envision a discussion, where everyone is equal, no points are kept and no one minds when they are wrong, in fact freely admit it, because only the truth matters. There is a world of difference between a discussion and a debate, though they do share a common element in this forum--they both always morph into a third form, an ugly cousin: argument.
... --- ...
Originally posted by eagles54Excellent. Very Cartesian.
A favorite story of mine:
A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the p ...[text shortened]... you Zen unless you first empty your cup."
lol Nearly everyone here has a full cup!
The problem with that is that I wouldn't have very much fun with it. I can't live without competition, and I think that is true of a lot of others. So there wouldn't be much interest. Also, I think there is something to be said for argument in debate. I think that as long as people stay away from the insult matches and admit when they're wrong arguments can help people find a greater enlightenment.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWell said!
This is an issue all true philosophers and scholars have to face sooner or later if he is actually seeking the truth and not pride or popularity. You have to be able to open up you mind to all ideas great and small, including those of you most hated enemies, and be able to admit when a stray practically random idea from an idiot is better than what you ...[text shortened]... o to better at this, and try to be wrong at every oppertunity that comes my way.
... --- ...
I'm not sure it is a refusal to accept being wrong that turns the conversation to insults. The way I see it it is because there seems to be a constant disagreement on how a debate should be handled. One side claims faith and analogy as their tools and the other reason and empiricism. These two sides will never agree because for one side it is the answers that are important, for the other it is how those answers were arrived at. This incompatibility is what causes the frustration which leads to insults, not the acceptance of when one or other of them is wrong. Both sides basically end up saying "Why can't you see what I'm talking about?" to which the other replies "Because you aren't taking a language I understand."
I fear this will never be resolved. I for one, when I truly believe I am wrong, will admit so and I am trying less and less to insult those I debate with though it is frustration that usually brings it out, not defensive over-reaction.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI think you're labouring under a misconception here, whoever said debates are any kind of path to truth? The person who asks whether he's wrong is not entering into a debate...
In my time so far in this forum I have seen maybe two people who seem honestly open to new ideas; the rest just spout their ideas and try to cut every corner and pull every string to prove that everyone who disagrees is wrong. This is not the way to any kind of truth. The first question of an honest thinker should always be "am I wrong?" instead of "how is my opponent wrong?"
MÅ¥HÅRM
I consider my ideas to be like clothes I am wearing. While they are working out, I keep them. But as soon as they no longer suit me, I change.
I am not my ideas, they are not me. If you destroy my ideas with logic, you dont destroy me, or even hurt me. In fact you help me by showing me holes in my clothes.
z
Originally posted by StarrmanNo, for both sides it's the answers they arrive at that are important. There are very few that dont find the answers important, thus the reason sonofsaul posted in the first place...
One side claims faith and analogy as their tools and the other reason and empiricism. These two sides will never agree because for one side it is the answers that are important, for the other it is how those answers were arrived at.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmPerhaps I should rephrase that, you are right, it is important on both sides, but it is the way in which those answers are arrived at that causes the the grief. One side takes a leap of faith, the other takes a path of reason, it is these different ways of arriving at decisions that causes the debate to degenerate. If for example I could prove to rwingett he was wrong using the path of reason, then I have no doubt he would back down, but if I used faith, he will remain unshaken in his position. Likewise, if I were able to use faith in such a way as to show Darfius he was wrong on a point, he would in all likelyhood admit a mistake, however if I use reason, he too would remain steadfastly opposed.
No, for both sides it's the answers they arrive at that are important. There are very few that dont find the answers important, thus the reason sonofsaul posted in the first place...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't think you can use faith to show anything.
Perhaps I should rephrase that, you are right, it is important on both sides, but it is the way in which those answers are arrived at that causes the the grief. One side takes a leap of faith, the other takes a path of reason, it is these different ways of arriving at decisions that causes the debate to degenerate. If for example I could prove to rwingett ...[text shortened]... ll likelyhood admit a mistake, however if I use reason, he too would remain steadfastly opposed.