3 ms·

The ability to entertain conflicting views is the mark of wisdom. - someone, somewhere

ckozlowski 11y ago
Here ya go: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle
zo1 11y ago
If you have conflicting views on a single-topic, then your philosophy is not universal because you're contradicting yourself or making exceptions. If more people learnt to rectify those inconsistencies and clarify their primitive beliefs (in reference to primitive types), we'd definitely live in a wonderful world (whatever that may be).
- delinka 11y ago
  "Entertaining" conflicting views and holding them are different things. If you can't "entertain" conflicting views, you can't properly weigh the arguments and come to an informed decision. However, people hold contradictory views all the time. Religion is a fine example.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    Entertaining views without holding them is much more difficult than it seems. The question of whether it's possible to understand a proposition without believing it at least provisionally used to be hotly debated by philosophers. The experimental evidence suggests that it's not possible http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_told/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_tol... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418
    - zo1 11y ago
      Nice finds, reading through them now.
- bmelton 11y ago
  As a card-carrying libertarian, I'll have to agree and disagree, which I suppose fits the spirit of the thread. I arrived at libertarianism through study of the Constitution. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but compared to the average American, I don't think a comparatively expert status is that hard to come by. Regardless, reading through the constitution time and again has led me to believe that its founding principle, above all else, is that people ought to be free. The first principle of the constitution is to enshrine the primacy of individual liberty. Knowing that, as a matter of ideology (with all its associated ills), I prefer policies that seek to promote individual liberty vs. curtailing it, wherever possible. Beyond that, if one is a Constitutionalist, then I believe it gets grayer. I consider myself a big L Libertarian when talking about policy matters at the federal level, but I consider myself more of a democrat when dealing with policy matters at state and local levels, which is (I believe) what the Constitution prescribes. On the whole, this leads to a general dissatisfaction with everything, because even good policies tend to be applied at the wrong level. As such, I have many "conflicting views" in the broad strokes idea level -- which is to say that I'm against the idea of Obamacare as a matter of principle, but I'd be perfectly fine with 50 Romneycares, even acknowledging that 1 Obamacare would likely be far more cost effective, efficient, and practical than 50 Romneycares. Having a first principle to rely upon definitely allows for more internal consistency, but it definitely doesn't solve for every x. There are really good arguments for and against abortion, for example, and while I definitely lean pro-choice personally, I couldn't make a case that proved why my belief is superior to somebody else's.
  - artimaeis 11y ago
    I'm genuinely curious, as this isn't the sort of thing I've gotten an opportunity to ask before: When you study the US Constitution (kind of assuming that's the one you're referring to) do you also study its amendments as thoroughly? Do you also study the available works from its writers - to better understand their intent and the language of the time? Then on a slightly related thread then - the federal government is what holds up the bottom end of our United States. The bottom 5 states truly have large problems caused by a myriad of things from poor leadership to ineffective policies. The top 5 states, on the other hand, tend to hold up the country quite effectively (see: California's GDP would put it at #8 in the world) and it's the federal government that's balancing those forces out. Do you think that this fits in with the role of the constitution necessarily? Does it even have to for it to be obvious that it's a good idea that the founders didn't codify into the constitution because it was so foreign a concept to them at the time? Sorry if this comes across as rambling - I'm just genuinely interested in this line of reason!

Here ya go: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

zo1 11y ago

If you have conflicting views on a single-topic, then your philosophy is not universal because you're contradicting yourself or making exceptions. If more people learnt to rectify those inconsistencies and clarify their primitive beliefs (in reference to primitive types), we'd definitely live in a wonderful world (whatever that may be).

delinka 11y ago
"Entertaining" conflicting views and holding them are different things. If you can't "entertain" conflicting views, you can't properly weigh the arguments and come to an informed decision. However, people hold contradictory views all the time. Religion is a fine example.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  Entertaining views without holding them is much more difficult than it seems. The question of whether it's possible to understand a proposition without believing it at least provisionally used to be hotly debated by philosophers. The experimental evidence suggests that it's not possible http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_told/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_tol... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418
  - zo1 11y ago
    Nice finds, reading through them now.
bmelton 11y ago
As a card-carrying libertarian, I'll have to agree and disagree, which I suppose fits the spirit of the thread. I arrived at libertarianism through study of the Constitution. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but compared to the average American, I don't think a comparatively expert status is that hard to come by. Regardless, reading through the constitution time and again has led me to believe that its founding principle, above all else, is that people ought to be free. The first principle of the constitution is to enshrine the primacy of individual liberty. Knowing that, as a matter of ideology (with all its associated ills), I prefer policies that seek to promote individual liberty vs. curtailing it, wherever possible. Beyond that, if one is a Constitutionalist, then I believe it gets grayer. I consider myself a big L Libertarian when talking about policy matters at the federal level, but I consider myself more of a democrat when dealing with policy matters at state and local levels, which is (I believe) what the Constitution prescribes. On the whole, this leads to a general dissatisfaction with everything, because even good policies tend to be applied at the wrong level. As such, I have many "conflicting views" in the broad strokes idea level -- which is to say that I'm against the idea of Obamacare as a matter of principle, but I'd be perfectly fine with 50 Romneycares, even acknowledging that 1 Obamacare would likely be far more cost effective, efficient, and practical than 50 Romneycares. Having a first principle to rely upon definitely allows for more internal consistency, but it definitely doesn't solve for every x. There are really good arguments for and against abortion, for example, and while I definitely lean pro-choice personally, I couldn't make a case that proved why my belief is superior to somebody else's.
- artimaeis 11y ago
  I'm genuinely curious, as this isn't the sort of thing I've gotten an opportunity to ask before: When you study the US Constitution (kind of assuming that's the one you're referring to) do you also study its amendments as thoroughly? Do you also study the available works from its writers - to better understand their intent and the language of the time? Then on a slightly related thread then - the federal government is what holds up the bottom end of our United States. The bottom 5 states truly have large problems caused by a myriad of things from poor leadership to ineffective policies. The top 5 states, on the other hand, tend to hold up the country quite effectively (see: California's GDP would put it at #8 in the world) and it's the federal government that's balancing those forces out. Do you think that this fits in with the role of the constitution necessarily? Does it even have to for it to be obvious that it's a good idea that the founders didn't codify into the constitution because it was so foreign a concept to them at the time? Sorry if this comes across as rambling - I'm just genuinely interested in this line of reason!