3 ms·

Thank you also for the openness. >>But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to

• ace_of_spades 10y ago
  touché... In essence, I hope to have argued the point that one can reasonably conceive of any person as living in their own reality. A reality that is shaped by the need to survive in a given environment. To reach someone in there, you have to speak in a language they understand - not only verbally - but also on a (let's call it) knowing level. For example, concepts can mean different things in different cultures (e.g., family, country/state). If there are strong differences in understanding a productive conversation is going to be almost impossible. So there are a few options here (list not necessarily exhaustive): 1. Force someone to 'change' by action and either don't care about the other or hope that they come to realize the benefit of your actions, but that will likely be an edge case. 2. Ignore the lack in understanding and expect the other side to figure it out on their own (maybe guided by some actions, norms, etc.). I guess this is what has happened for a long time. It can work, but it seems a little bit like gambling. 3. If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow. We realize that we don't yet know everything. That we even can't know everything because everything can change. So we engage with each other in a quest to discover how we can overcome the problems we face. One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding. But I also think that we can facilitate this with technology. A (global) translation network if you so will. I have the feeling a lot of people are already working on this... they maybe just don't know it yet :) We live in interesting times! [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine
  • ace_of_spades 10y ago
    And just to add to that... I think the quicker and more unpredictable change is going to be, the more we'll realize the benefits of option 3. If you don't know where you will end up in life, you gain a different perspective of what should and should not be. I guess the obligatory reference on this topic would be [1]. But I am also very intrigued by [2]. Sadly, I did not have time to read the book yet but I have had the time to read a summary paper he published in another textbook. If you are interested in the topic, it might be worth checking out :) [1]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/ [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Justice-Ken-Binmore/dp/0199791481 https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Justice-Ken-Binmore/dp/019979...
    • tmptmp 10y ago
      >>3. If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow. We realize that we don't yet know everything. That we even can't know everything because everything can change. So we engage with each other in a quest to discover how we can overcome the problems we face. I have a small doubt about it. On its face, your proposition seems quite attractive (in fact, as a liberal I always try to live by it) but in some circumstances it is outright dangerous. To elaborate: Yes, we don't know everything, yes, we may not even know everything but still we have to manage our existence and our survival. So we cannot just indefinitely and naively apply the above mentioned principle of "If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow". To some extent we may allow the opposition to expand and we (as liberals) will accommodate some of their demands. But there has to be a recoprocating response of accommodation from the other side. We can wait for "certain amount of time" for the opposition to respond to our calls, but if our very survival and our very values are at stake, we cannot keep on waiting and accommodating the opposition indefinitely. So, I suggest the following, to continue with your suggestion: >>One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding. I agree that causing unnecessary conflicts is bad. But raising points regarding doubts about something is not only not bad it is required. So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion: Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals? We can begin by asking these questions, and let us see if the other side at least allow these issues to be discussed publicly? [1] http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur%27an http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur%27a...