Completely disregarding religion, I take interest in your mindset, and the philosophy of debate and open-mindedness...
Well I applaud that, tush. Let's see if I can give a satisfactory reply.
You know, I've always considered debates and arguments as a learning experience.
You are not alone. People learn in different ways, and argument is one of them. Argument as a mode of learning has never suited my own preferences, but I have known people who thrive this way, and their reality is significant enough in my philosophy that I have used this exact quality as a core personality trait for more than one character in my fiction, to better explore the idea.
I would be remiss not to mention that I look down upon this mode of learning. Argument is in the domain of ego, and unchecked ego is usually a sign of pettiness. A true dialectic requires no confrontational aspect, an "argument" in this sense of the word is simply the logical framework surrounding one's concepts. But when people say "argument" they almost always refer to the confrontational kind, the kind that says "Let's disagree with one another and see what happens." Implicit in this is that all parties involved usually have a preexisting bias in their own favor, and are in it to defend themselves more so than to broaden their horizons--curiously, a charge you will level against me later in your post.
Whatever my personal views, the results speak for themselves and I cannot gainsay knowledge gained through argument. It is not an invalid mode of learning. It is simply a flawed one, perhaps ideal, therefore, for comparably flawed people. Thus I think your statement is fair, but worth keeping in mind as we continue.
I, myself, do not like to argue. I don't like that kind of confrontation in general. What you see me do a lot of on the Compendium is "one-sided" argument. I don't argue with people when I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't argue with people on subjects where I do not have an important point to make. I don't argue--especially here on the Compendium--unless I already know I am right. I will excuse your arrogant perception of this as closed-minded, as I can see how it would appear to be so and will return to address the point shortly in any case, and for now I will simply grant you that when I argue I do so to win a case--not to be argued against by others, or to learn (about the subject matter being argued). Indeed, it should not properly be called "argument"; it is more a style of pronouncement, which becomes aggressive when other people engage with it because it is not meant to be gainsaid.
I, myself, learn best by asking people questions directly. I am honestly surprised that this is not the principal style of learning for almost everybody, and even more surprised that it seems to be downright uncommon. Many have told me that they learn through argument, but few have said their mode of learning is interrogative. To me, questioning seems the ideal way to learn; no emotional heat need ever accrue, and nothing is lost for nothing needs to be defended in the first place. If you look carefully you will see examples of my curious nature on the Compendium, and you will note they take a completely different form and tone than my more conspicuous "arguments."
This too is worth keeping in mind as we continue.
It also challenges the debater to clash their processing capabilities, ironing out flaws in their reasoning and come to a better understanding.
That is well-put and quite true. However, the only learning to be done here is to learn how to present a more robust argument--in the logical sense of the word. The "clash," as you eloquently put it, will not teach about the subject matter. It will teach about presenting the subject matter. That's fair, and, as I have mentioned, it is one of my own purposes when I present (confrontational) arguments. I have learned a great deal about what will affect people, and how, and likewise I have learned what I mentioned earlier--to refine and sharpen the presentation of my ideas to better withstand critical scrutiny (or, alternatively, to identify and discard ideas which would not).
The most open minded of the debaters is not one who is intelligent, but one who is open to sound reasoning and not only molding data on the table, but also his/her own thoughts in the right direction.
What is your definition of "intelligence" that it could exclude someone who is "open to sound reasoning"?
But open-mindedness depends on these questions: Do you accept new or different knowledge than your own? Do you imagine yourself faithfully in someone else's shoes (first person)? Does your prejudice/bias stop you from leaving your sentimental bounds of your world? Are your beliefs strong, and yet flexible, or are they everything to you? Can you stand hypothetical questions, no matter how insane and inaccurate they may sound?
If it is worthy; I try; sometimes; I reject the premise of "belief"; usually.
You have a lot to learn about open-mindedness, although at least you may be one of the people who does not preclude themselves from learning it. I, here, have the choice of whether to simply tell you flat out that open-mindedness is one of the two key character traits at the top of my philosophy, around which all subsequent character integrity is based, and that I have given the matter more thought and consideration than you could possibly know, or I could take the rather more laborious route and explain to you some of my personal journey so that you would see I am not simply making a boast. If all else were equal, I would choose the latter because you deserve not to be asked to take me at my word, but my time constraints compel me to leave the assertion as a placeholder for now, and I invite your more specific questions on the subject for the indefinite future until such time as I have prepared more formal works to which I may refer you. It's no real loss; all it means is that my statement that you have a lot to learn about open-mindedness is not strictly valid for the time being, but, about your own situation, you probably know as much yourself.
You think yourself to be on the right side of the affair, so kudos to you. Then kudos to everyone, because everyone thinks they're right.
I am well aware that "everyone" thinks they're right. I find that to be one of the great ironies in life. I accept it as a part of human nature and I am compelled by it to lend a greater urgency to my work. For, you see...there is a logical fallacy in assuming that, simply because "everyone" thinks they are right, no one actually is. The human world needs strong philosophical leadership, and always has, yet few people are competent to deliver it.
Even the word "right" is difficult for me to accept, when talking about these mattes, without qualification. "Rightness" in this sense is little more than a consistent and comprehensive system of ideas (or any portion thereof) which would effect, or effect toward, a worldwide environment where more people enjoy a higher material and ideal quality of life, and where the standards by which such qualities are judged would be more consistent with the needs and desires of the human body as well as the intellectual integrity of the human will and the emotional wholesomeness of the human psyche. When I say I'm "right" about, for example, abortion, I mean that my policy will make the world a better place on those terms. I am not generally laying claim to any metaphysical certitude, as such a thing is much harder to earn and seldom possible to attain. (If pressed to present my credentials of metaphysical certitude, which fortunately few people think to demand, the ensuing epistemological discussion completely leaves behind the specific topic at hand--i.e., abortion.)
But you're confusing intelligence with open-mindedness, because seriously, even an idiot can be open-minded if they choose to be so. What's even more baffling is how narrow-minded most so-called intelligent people can be, drowning so much in their arrogance that they fail to see the bigger picture.
Your anti-intellectual streak does not behoove you, and I won't afford you the luxury of my addressing it. Sadly, the thing you describe is common to most people, the unintelligent even more so than the intelligent. It is not a failure of intellectualism; it is a flaw in the human condition. And, yes, even an "idiot" can be open-minded, although intelligence and open-mindedness share enough of a bond that a sufficiently unintelligent person would not be able to recognize or capitalize upon open-mindedness as the ideal subjective worldview bias.
Incidentally,
you are confusing closed-mindedness with judgment. There's nothing wrong with a person making a judgment about something once they are competent to do so. Indeed,
not making the judgment at that point would be the wrong choice. Open-mindedness pertains only to the unknown (such as how many light-years away the nearest civilization is) and to matters of personal preference (such as your friend's favorite food). When it comes to objective knowns, open-mindedness has no trouble encompassing sound judgment, which in turn leads to a better-defined and more consistent strength of character.
See, there's this concept called Argument Abuser, which defines an intelligent (and sufficiently arrogant) person who uses sensible reasoning to back up his ideas, even if the ideas are inherently flawed, thus disposing the opposing view for victory. One of the most frequent abusers of these argumentative powers is Richard Dawkins: When he believes he is right at something, at the cost of an argument's intellectual benefits, he will ignore considering the opposing ideas, simply backing up his own, and try to win and enforce his suggestions. Some others like him even go so far as covering flaws in their ideas with figurative veils and directly attacking the audience's sentiments, thus claiming majority. Of course, some resolve to much more sophisticated tricks, sometimes subtle, such as wordsmithing, etc. For these people, argumentative powers simply serves as a tool, akin to weapons defending your own castle and attacking others'. Even Osama Bin Laden can make sound arguments and win favors (and he already has in many places).
You strike me as a budding relativist with strong quasi-spiritual tendencies, inasmuch as you seem prone to reject both the merit and even the validity of knowing things objectively. Putting aside your specific examples of Dawkins and bin Laden, and the unverified correctness of identifying them as you have done so here, you are claiming here that people who argue to win are wrong in their views. You do this by conflating the use of certain tactics with the possession of weak underlying ideas--when the two are rightly independent. Again you are ill-served by making these kinds of assumptions. What about the case of the person who has no flaws in their ideas an argues to win? Your mind does not like to think in those terms, but can you explain how it is incorrect for one party to argue to win when their argument is objectively right and the other party's is objectively wrong?
Whether or not you are aware of your mistake, I expect you think that argument is not well-served when people try to win rather than striving to foster an understanding in themselves about where the other party is coming from. And to someone such as yourself who learns through confrontational argument, that view indeed makes sense. However, by generalizing what works for you to include all such argument, you create a huge opening for correctness and incorrectness to coexist as part of the consensus wisdom, which is anything but wise and undermines everybody.
And when it really comes down to this, it is hardly an intelligent debate. It turns into a war of beliefs, where people with opposing beliefs narrowmindedly give their all just to win arguments, and because here belief matters more to a person each argument becomes a personal offense. In this case, you telling the religious they're wrong, and they saying you're wrong. Who's right? Your guess is as good as mine.
My "guess" is a working theory that conveys the way things are, and is undoubtedly more meritorious by far than whatever assertion you might pit against it. I would certainly never say that non-Christians or even fully non-religious people don't suffer their own curses of slime and wretchedness, but Christianity (and Islam, while we're at it) add a whole extra dimension of rottenness, unique unto itself, that affects the entire world for the worse.
I don't expect you to take me at my word on that. I expect you to look for yourself. If you see it for yourself then I don't need to prove anything, and if you don't see it for yourself then proving it to you would be considerably more intensive a project than I care to undertake at this point.
You accuse others of not being open-minded enough to debate with you, but ask yourself this: do you even require someone to be so? You assume to have an open-mind but your statement contradicts you. No, you don't argue for the sake of its vivid benefits and new ideas, except for the only ones you seek: sharpen my own ideas so that they could withstand and even defeat opposing points of view. You don't argue for the sheer learning experience. You argue for victory, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, satisfied with delusions that you actually are.
I commend you for what must certainly have taken you some courage to write, since you claim to be overwhelmed at times by my intelligence and language. I appreciate your audacity.
I think by now you have a better sense of why I argue, in the confrontational sense of the word. I do so, in addition to putting my ideas on the record for all to see, to aid my understanding of people and occasionally their understanding of me, and (more so in the past than now) I do so to improve my instruments of presenting arguments--or, more appropriately--to improve my ability of presenting a logically valid argument and, more difficultly, getting people to recognize that I'm right and they're not.
Although I have had many more failures than successes on that latter count, I have had a better record than most people who strive to enlighten rather than brainwash. (Brainwashing is easy.) My technique is certainly a work in progress, and I recognize that the aggressiveness puts some people off. (Unfortunately those people live in a make-believe world where convictions somehow exist without contention). However, the basic premise is solid: Anyone strong of mind and open of mind can engage with me and both they and I will come out ahead because I do not lie and will not present a weak position. Anyone but the strongest would probably be better off asking me questions, making constructive criticisms, or taking my pronouncements as an opportunity to make inquiries elsewhere. Attempting to refute my positions without having the substance to do so, is pure folly.
This does not make me closed-minded. A mook really is a mook. If somebody comes along and says the Earth is flat, well, what do you expect me to do? Am I closed-minded for dismissing them, even when I know and can see for myself that they are wrong? That's what a lot of political and metaphysical argument comes down to: People up and say the craziest shit, the kind of stuff that I'd be embarrassed to read if I were their teacher. If they do that to me, then, my time permitting, I will tell them that they're wrong. End.
I take in knowledge and opinion everywhere I go. Maybe you don't see that because it isn't as apparent as me posting in a topic laying down a point of view and leaving little room for debate. My open-mindedness is rather legendary; you would be amazed at what I am willing to consider. What I am
not willing to consider is bullshit. I am at the point now where I have "done" the whole "arguments for and against the existence of god" routine. I've learned the various points of view. I've read the best arguments, and the most comprehensive. I've seen pretty much all there is to see on the subject. And I've made up my mind. That's not closed-minded, even if it does imply that everyone who has taken a different position from me is wrong, no matter their level of intelligence. That's simply good judgment.
Moreover, when it comes to my participation in confrontational argument, I have long since learned that most people simply aren't interested in learning--even if you are--and enter into debate only to validate themselves and be validated by others. They have little chance of gleaning new facts when they perceive themselves to be under attack, and attacks are all they perceive when gainspoken, for they have never been taught how to discern between the many forms of adversarial engagements. The list of gains I may accomplish in such situations is short, and my own opportunity to learn from them about the subject matter under discussion is limited.
In some ways your perceptions of me are no fault of your own, but a symptom of the gulf between us and of the fact that I have lost the energy to tell my whole life's story to every new person who comes along. For that much of it, I do not hold you accountable for your wrongness.
But if that's really what you're after then I implore you to come to India where most Theological (Christian) experts are not only open-minded philanthropists, but also majors in Science (at least the ones I know). With the way you seek to argue, I guarantee you'll be weeping with your self-esteem shattered. It's sad, really.
You make it sound as if I have no capacity to argue with people who have an academic education, or as if I refuse to acknowledge that Christians can and do commit acts of kindness upon the world. You also make it sound as though I base my self-confidence on my ability to tell other people when they are wrong.
That's all foolish.
Like, for instance a religious person criticizes Atheism, I defend Atheism. When an Atheist criticizes religion, I defend that religion. Even if I know that the moment I stepped into the battlefield I've already lost.
Aye, you've already...but I suspect not for the reasons you think. Your own sense of self-superiority is showing, tush. Do you have the depth to back it up?
