Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jeango t1_iuqh0kz wrote

Reply to comment by External_Star3376 in [Image] The Maturity Climb by raytanwl

Imho the « obsessed with facts one » is in a wrong place. Because people obsessed with facts tend to see them as indisputable evidence that back their opinion. True wisdom sees the big picture whereas facts are just focused on a narrow reality.

10

External_Star3376 t1_iuqlyxc wrote

What would be better you think? "Loves doing research" or "loves using evidence based information" maybe?

3

jeango t1_iur23dj wrote

I would say « open to debate » would probably be the right way to put it for me

2

aristidedn t1_iurth6z wrote

Being open to debate is only a virtue when the debate in question is worth having. Being open to debate in all things is a way to easily get dragged backwards into arguments over settled topics.

Debate is a tool to arrive at correct answers to hard questions. Once an answer is arrived at - and with enough rigor that the answer is reasonably certain to be correct - continuing to debate it is a poor use of one's time. There are other hard questions that need answering.

3

jeango t1_ius6yw0 wrote

I beg to differ. Wanting the debate to end up with a « correct answer » is imho a narrow view of what could be the point of debate. Same with the question of wether the debate is worth having, you can’t say that « topic A » is not worth debating in an absolute sense. It may not be of interest to you, but could be of interest to someone else. Because essentially, what you’re saying is that philosophy shouldn’t exist.

0

aristidedn t1_ius9to8 wrote

> I beg to differ.

Oh dear.

> Wanting the debate to end up with a « correct answer » is imho a narrow view of what could be the point of debate.

I'm sure that there are other things that can be gained from debate beyond simply the correct answer to the question at hand - experience in argumentation, an increased sense of perspective or empathy for those on the other side, etc.

But you have to guard against people weaponizing the "virtue of debate" as a way of forcing the relitigation of settled topics in order to prevent progress.

For example, take climate change. There is essentially zero disagreement among those researching climate change that anthropogenic factors contribute significantly to climate change. And they got to that consensus in the first place through debate. But there are people (who aren't part of those professional research communities) who have a vested interest in constantly revisiting the debate on a society-wide level, because they don't like that the question is settled. And they know that if they can make it seem like the question is still open and still needs to be answered, they can force the professional research community into wasting its money, time, and energy on "debate" rather than progress.

The same holds true for gay marriage, evolutionary theory, gun control, etc.

When you allow the people on the losing side of a debate to perpetually insist on rematch after rematch, you rob yourself of the chance to actually get meaningful work done.

If you want experience debating, debate something worthwhile. If you want to gain empathy for groups you aren't a part of, listen to them.

> Same with the question of wether the debate is worth having, you can’t say that « topic A » is not worth debating in an absolute sense.

You can, at the societal level.

> It may not be of interest to you, but could be of interest to someone else.

That's great! Let them worry about finding someone to debate settled topics with. It isn't your moral or ethical obligation.

> Because essentially, what you’re saying is that philosophy shouldn’t exist.

Yikes.

You need to spend a lot more time thinking this through.

1

jeango t1_iut2lkg wrote

Ok I’m starting to understand your point of view. I was reasoning from a general standpoint, with no specific topic in mind, whereas you’re thinking from the perspective of specific stakes. I think we can probably agree that both debates and facts can be weaponised towards a specific agenda, and that neither of those attitudes are acceptable. My gripe with « facts » people is that they tend to only look at the facts that support their agenda, and your gripe with « debate » people is that they just don’t want to listen to the other opinion.

I guess I could reformulate then and instead of « open to debate », a better choice of words could be « true to his convictions ». It’s a bit different but I think it’s a mature thing to be truthful.

Edit: note that being truthful to your convictions doesn’t mean to be obsessed by them, but rather to live them truthfully

1

FreakyManBaby t1_iuqtl4h wrote

the full context is obsessed with status/obsessed with questioning/obsessed with facts. perhaps there is a better phrasing for it "obsessed with wisdom"

2

jeango t1_iuqz25c wrote

I think no obsession is ever a good thing, because it views whatever is not the subject of its obsession as a flaw, which is the base of entitlement. Even obsession with balance is a terrible obsession.

2

BigMouse12 t1_iurm9e2 wrote

Any obsession can go to far, but this is using the word more like “being driven towards”.

1