PHIL 3310. Exploring the philosophical, ethical, spiritual, existential, social, and personal implications of a godless universe, and supporting their study at Middle Tennessee State University & beyond.
I love the idea that American philosophy isn't about being "right" or winning a debate. I don't think philosophy should be about that at all. Philosophy, to me, is about exploring problems and attempting to understand them more fully. In order to do this effectively, we need to maintain some degree of open mindedness. At least enough to keep the conversation moving forward, rather than to a standstill.
COMMENT LOG
1. April 7: Comment on “Quizzes Apr 7, 9” 2. April 7: Comment on “Quizzes Apr 7, 9” 3. April 7: Comment on “Pray for Lee” 4. April 7: Comment on “An Atheist Funeral” 5. April 9: Comment on Magdu Qasim’s report. 6. April 9: Comment on ‘Last call for comments on "This Life’” 7. April 9: Reply on “Quizzes Apr 7, 9” 8. April 9: Comment on “What's the point? To move forward…”
Exactly, it's about keeping the conversation alive. My favorite professional organization, the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, was founded by my mentor Lachs and others precisely because the American Philosophical Association had become dominated by overly-aggressive types who always wanted to "win" and to make their adversaries lose in humiliation. It was not a healthy environment.
There are so many people who refuse change and other opinions. Is there any way to get through to them to keep ourselves on the right track? Or even to find what the right track is? The ones who are out for their wins, not caring about their validity, is there a way to get through to them? I find it difficult dealing with these personalities myself when something needs to get done and I can get at a loss of what to do.
I think that the competitive structuring of academia often exacerbates this problem. Education and grading are structured in a competitive capacity that determines who gets to go to which schools, who gets which internships, and who gets to take specific classes. As long as we continue intertwine competition into our institutions of learning, we will continue to produce those whose only interest is to win.
I love the idea that American philosophy isn't about being "right" or winning a debate. I don't think philosophy should be about that at all. Philosophy, to me, is about exploring problems and attempting to understand them more fully. In order to do this effectively, we need to maintain some degree of open mindedness. At least enough to keep the conversation moving forward, rather than to a standstill.
ReplyDeleteCOMMENT LOG
1. April 7: Comment on “Quizzes Apr 7, 9”
2. April 7: Comment on “Quizzes Apr 7, 9”
3. April 7: Comment on “Pray for Lee”
4. April 7: Comment on “An Atheist Funeral”
5. April 9: Comment on Magdu Qasim’s report.
6. April 9: Comment on ‘Last call for comments on "This Life’”
7. April 9: Reply on “Quizzes Apr 7, 9”
8. April 9: Comment on “What's the point? To move forward…”
8 bases/2 runs!
Exactly, it's about keeping the conversation alive. My favorite professional organization, the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, was founded by my mentor Lachs and others precisely because the American Philosophical Association had become dominated by overly-aggressive types who always wanted to "win" and to make their adversaries lose in humiliation. It was not a healthy environment.
DeleteI agree having an open mind allows you to see the similarities and gives you another world view.
DeleteThere are so many people who refuse change and other opinions. Is there any way to get through to them to keep ourselves on the right track? Or even to find what the right track is? The ones who are out for their wins, not caring about their validity, is there a way to get through to them? I find it difficult dealing with these personalities myself when something needs to get done and I can get at a loss of what to do.
ReplyDeleteWhen all else fails, recall the wise words of Mr. Twain: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
DeleteI think that the competitive structuring of academia often exacerbates this problem. Education and grading are structured in a competitive capacity that determines who gets to go to which schools, who gets which internships, and who gets to take specific classes. As long as we continue intertwine competition into our institutions of learning, we will continue to produce those whose only interest is to win.
DeleteDogmatism is the enemy of discussion and conversation... as JFK put it, "“Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." I think that a lot of the times with folks of the dogmatic cloth it's not actually about being right, but about not wanting to confront the fact that they may be wrong...
ReplyDelete