![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
garranThe other day, in Philosophy, I thought about the difference between subjectivism and humility, arguing that even though everyone (including oneself) stands a fair chance of being wrong, it is possible to be right. I wonder if I've always agreed with that?
Sumana says, Abolition of slavery. If you're against this, I kind of want to know why. Every once in a while, I've asked questions in the same vein; why people believe that children can't learn to read of their own volition, or that America is uniquely virtuous among nations. When people say these things, I don't understand what rational considerations can have led them to those conclusions, so I want them to tell me.
But these assertions don't just seem unsupported in a neutral, cautious way; they're things that I disagree with (though much less vehemently in the last case). I kind of give the impression that I'm inviting people who agree with them to try and convince me - which, in fact, I am - but I don't actually want to be convinced - if I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected, but at the moment, I believe that I'm right, so I'm naturally belligerent to attempts to change my view (to greater or lesser degrees, depending how strong my opinion is). So, I don't want to know what you think because I'm receptive to your point of view; I want to know because A) I tend to assume that people are behaving logically, so if I don't understand the logic of an argument, that's a gap in my understanding I want to fill; but mostly B) I want to have a grip on why you think what you do so that I can try to convince you to think otherwise.
(Edit - Actually, there's (at least) a C): sometimes, I'm not so interested in convincing the other party as I am in strengthening my own logic by pitting it against stronger arguments than I have before; that is, convincing myself to be more sure of what I think. It feels, though I'm not sure this is true, as though this is a nobler intention.)
Is this warlike conversation? If so, is it avoidable, and is it really desirable that I avoid it, or is that consideration impractical? I think the answers to some of these questions have a lot to do with how willing I am to consider that I might be the one who is wrong.
I often want to give weblog entries climax and closure, which I pretty rarely accomplish, because weblogs (at least, mine) are all about things that are still in progress. At any rate, these are the things that I'm thinking about at a time of night when I really ought to be sleeping.
Sumana says, Abolition of slavery. If you're against this, I kind of want to know why. Every once in a while, I've asked questions in the same vein; why people believe that children can't learn to read of their own volition, or that America is uniquely virtuous among nations. When people say these things, I don't understand what rational considerations can have led them to those conclusions, so I want them to tell me.
But these assertions don't just seem unsupported in a neutral, cautious way; they're things that I disagree with (though much less vehemently in the last case). I kind of give the impression that I'm inviting people who agree with them to try and convince me - which, in fact, I am - but I don't actually want to be convinced - if I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected, but at the moment, I believe that I'm right, so I'm naturally belligerent to attempts to change my view (to greater or lesser degrees, depending how strong my opinion is). So, I don't want to know what you think because I'm receptive to your point of view; I want to know because A) I tend to assume that people are behaving logically, so if I don't understand the logic of an argument, that's a gap in my understanding I want to fill; but mostly B) I want to have a grip on why you think what you do so that I can try to convince you to think otherwise.
(Edit - Actually, there's (at least) a C): sometimes, I'm not so interested in convincing the other party as I am in strengthening my own logic by pitting it against stronger arguments than I have before; that is, convincing myself to be more sure of what I think. It feels, though I'm not sure this is true, as though this is a nobler intention.)
Is this warlike conversation? If so, is it avoidable, and is it really desirable that I avoid it, or is that consideration impractical? I think the answers to some of these questions have a lot to do with how willing I am to consider that I might be the one who is wrong.
I often want to give weblog entries climax and closure, which I pretty rarely accomplish, because weblogs (at least, mine) are all about things that are still in progress. At any rate, these are the things that I'm thinking about at a time of night when I really ought to be sleeping.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:29 am (UTC)Remind me to email you about this sometime.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:50 am (UTC)I have not precisely represented myself here, but I suspect that the attempt to do a more proper justice would just lead to deeper and deeper nested disclaimers.
Ooh! Here's another one. I like to have as many ideas as possible - even ideas that I probably disagree with - in my sphere of consciousness, so that I can refer to them at will.
-Garran