Commentary:
Friendships among intellectuals. “Even more than differences over religion, political disputes seem to ignite ugly emotions and get things to the yelling stage quickly. That may well be why, in 18th-century clubs and coffeehouses, politics was often prohibited as a subject for discussion.”
Among the civilized, ‘agreeing to disagree’ is an essential point to agree upon before the discussion starts. The idea of force-feeding an opinion is, and always has been, bankrupt. A change of opinion must be seduced, rather than coerced.
The first step is to not characterize another’s argument by “you” this, or “you” that. Never make it personal. Concentrate on the facts themselves. We are a society who overvalues being ‘right’, to the exclusion of all else. Humbleness, the “I think this, but I could be wrong” is rarely present ... and moreover, considered a weakness in argument these days. God forbid anyone should show such a weakness! ... yet we constantly form opinions on subjects about which we know comparatively little. We should leave the door cracked a bit, on everything but the most closely-held beliefs. And, if one is willing to post an opinion, one must be willing to pick up a book on the subject ... at the very least.
Case in point, in what contemporary culture seems to call ‘argument’. A warning for colorful language.
Comments:
There are no comments at this time for this entry.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
