Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it wrong to converse with opposing viewpoints?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I couldn't have put it better myself.  And, on that note, I'd like to add that I, too, have done some reading on the subject.

Zoso, the problem is not what you have or have not read. The problem that I have had is your approach. You made a claim in the first post about something Dr. Peikoff said somewhere. You never gave us a quote; you never cited a source.

I had to ask, in post 4, for your source. I even said "please." You never responded. The same happened, didn't it, in the Heisenberg thread? Stephen asked you for a citation to back up your claim about what Objectivism says on an uncertainty principle or similar issue. You didn't back it up with facts.

Do you wonder then that members and moderators become irritated? Do you seriously expect courtesy when you treat others that way?

Further, it is absurd to ask a question -- which is a sign of ignorance -- and then begin arguing with people who suggest an answer. Are you surprised that contentiousness arises? The proper response is to think about the answer. If over the hours and days ahead, it doesn't integrate with what you know, then ask more questions and -- in a properly deferential manner -- explain your assumptions and thoughts so far. And prove everything you say about what Objectivism "says," by citing a source and, ideally, quoting a passage.

Again, I must say that anyone who says he is ignorant -- or demonstrates that he is so (as we all are on one subject or another) -- and then begins debating, is not someone I can respect, at least on that basis. You are obviously a very intelligent person; you are very motivated; and you are ambitious -- all qualities I admire. But always remember that other members know nothing much about you except your manner and your behavior in this forum.

Your questions are usually productive questions, and I am glad you ask them (though I would suggest concentrating on just a few and think about them thoroughly). Perhaps you could work on the delivery part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I read, and I assume that you have also read it. But I'm not going to the library to check the book back out so that I can look for the quote.

I am honestly not trying to debate anyone. I'm asking questions and, if something doesn't make sense to me, I say so and ask for further explanation. In other words, I'm wanting you to show me where I'm wrong.

But I'll try to do better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what I read, and I assume that you have also read it.  But I'm not going to the library to check the book back out so that I can look for the quote.

If you don't care enough to be objective -- and show it by citing sources or quotations -- then why bother to ask the question in that form?

If you don't want to get tangled up in making claims without proof, then why not just rephrase the question as a general question? For example: Is there a moral problem in speaking to people whose ideas are radically opposed to one's own? The reason I am asking is because ... My understanding of this issue is ...

Do you see? You did not even need to mention Dr. Peikoff or Kelley or any essay title. It is really that simple.

I am honestly not trying to debate anyone.  I'm asking questions and, if something doesn't make sense to me, I say so and ask for further explanation.  In other words, I'm wanting you to show me where I'm wrong.

[boldface added for emphasis]

Zoso, do you really not see the contradiction here? You claim to be asking questions. Fine. How can you then say you want others to prove you wrong unless you are arguing in favor of a certain position? That is the tactic of a debater not a questioner. Besides why should they prove you wrong? You are the one asking for the favor -- the time and attention of others who know more than you do about the subject.

P. S. -- What library book contained the Peikoff essay you were referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The essay was one that I found on the ARI website.  Assuming that most people had read it, I didn't see the necessity in saying where it was. 

I'm a bit confused, b/c I offered assistance by offering that essay as the one you were referencing, with no affirmation or denial on your part. Did you see my post? Did it go along with what you were asking? Why no acknowledgement ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoso:

Assuming that most people had read it, I didn't see the necessity in saying where it was. 
This explains your initial failure to provide the source, but it does not explain why you chose to ignore the requests of other poster's to provide it, such as this one:

Please cite (and quote) the passage from which you inferred your conclusion.

...

and this one also by Burgess:
You still have not told us the name of the essay or where we can find it.
Also, as Dominique has rightly pointed out, you never acknowledged whether the essay she mentioned was the one in question or not.

So you see, it has nothing to do with your not seeing the neccesity of posting the name of the essay. The necessity was pointed out to you. We can only assume that you ignored it since you replied to the post in which the request for the name of the article was contained. That, I think, is what has caused the "condescention" as you call it.

BurgessLau: Go to the source. The ARL is the single best (and least expensive!) guide to an initial study of Objectivism.
Zoso: Being that I am in graduate school, I don't currently have the time to read much other than what I am assigned for my classes.

Keep in mind that this is not an excuse. What BurgessLau was telling you was that you should read more about Objectivism before continuing this discussion. If you disagree, then please explain why. If you do not disagree, then what you are saying (which I hope you are not) is that you do not have enough time to do what you think is the right course of action. So, please answer this question: Do you believe that ARL is a more objective resource for learning about Objectivism than this board? If you do, then I think you had better go read it. If you do not have time to read it, then you should wait to post until you have time. But if you wish to debate whether or not reading the Lexicon is a better idea than posting on this forum (for you at this point in your study of Objectivism), by all means...

That said, this is just my opinion, and as I just implied that this forum is not the most objective resource on Objectivism... Go and check out a copy of the Lexicon already. It will only take you about sixty seconds to read the sections on open/closed mindedness. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...