Thought this was a good read.
The Dying Art of Disagreement
The Dying Art of Disagreement
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Importance of Reasonable Disagreement
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
Great find Andrew. Definitely worth reading. Here's something that was worth taking away.
Quote from the speech.
As I think about it, I’m not sure we were taught anything at all. What we did was read books that raised serious questions about the human condition, and which invited us to attempt to ask serious questions of our own. Education, in this sense, wasn’t a “teaching” with any fixed lesson. It was an exercise in interrogation.
To listen and understand; to question and disagree; to treat no proposition as sacred and no objection as impious; to be willing to entertain unpopular ideas and cultivate the habits of an open mind — this is what I was encouraged to do by my teachers at the University of Chicago.
Socrates quarrels with Homer. Aristotle quarrels with Plato. Locke quarrels with Hobbes and Rousseau quarrels with them both. Nietzsche quarrels with everyone. Wittgenstein quarrels with himself.
These quarrels are never personal. Nor are they particularly political, at least in the ordinary sense of politics. Sometimes they take place over the distance of decades, even centuries.
Most importantly, they are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out.
In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.
And . . .
This is the age of protected feelings purchased at the cost of permanent infantilization.
Quote from the speech.
As I think about it, I’m not sure we were taught anything at all. What we did was read books that raised serious questions about the human condition, and which invited us to attempt to ask serious questions of our own. Education, in this sense, wasn’t a “teaching” with any fixed lesson. It was an exercise in interrogation.
To listen and understand; to question and disagree; to treat no proposition as sacred and no objection as impious; to be willing to entertain unpopular ideas and cultivate the habits of an open mind — this is what I was encouraged to do by my teachers at the University of Chicago.
Socrates quarrels with Homer. Aristotle quarrels with Plato. Locke quarrels with Hobbes and Rousseau quarrels with them both. Nietzsche quarrels with everyone. Wittgenstein quarrels with himself.
These quarrels are never personal. Nor are they particularly political, at least in the ordinary sense of politics. Sometimes they take place over the distance of decades, even centuries.
Most importantly, they are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out.
In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.
And . . .
This is the age of protected feelings purchased at the cost of permanent infantilization.
This stuck out to me, "But what makes our disagreements so toxic is that we refuse to make eye contact with our opponents, or try to see things as they might, or find some middle ground."
I read or heard something years ago that stated politics has never been the same since Reagan and Tip O'Neal. Why? There was a change about that time (cannot remember what it was right now) that resulted in the politicians no longer living in Washington DC. That meant that their kids were no longer in the same schools, and they or their spouses no longer sat on the same PTA. Cookouts amongst Democrats and Republicans ceased - yes, they had happened at one time. Folks who fought with vigor while in session, were able to be friends outside of work. All this ceased. Those who did stay in DC, moved to private subdivisions. Most now rent an apartment in DC and go home on the weekends. The result of all this is the politicians no longer see each other as humans, but as opposing forces with no feelings - inhuman.
Frankly, that is a significant issue with the online world we live in. Yes, I am including our own forum in that. We forget that those we are debating are also humans - humans who have differing opinions for one reason or another, but at the end of the day, they are still humans. Though I've not been to a retreat, I can say with certainty that this is what makes them so special. The person you might debate there is no longer a nameless, faceless, feelingless being, but instead, you can have the debate and see emotions, convictions, and belief. While you might still disagree, the disagreement isn't void of the human side of things. Yes, face-to-face conversations get spirited, and sometimes enemies are made, but more often than not, people cannot be cruel to someone they look in the eyes.
Sadly, this is the nature of the world we live in. I wish I knew an answer that would fix it, but we are, as a society, in a tailspin of hatred and intolerance. Before someone brings it up, yes, we as Christians have convictions, and yes, we should stand on those convictions, but no, we don't have to be jerks while doing it (not saying anyone is, merely saying I see it ALL THE TIME).
I read or heard something years ago that stated politics has never been the same since Reagan and Tip O'Neal. Why? There was a change about that time (cannot remember what it was right now) that resulted in the politicians no longer living in Washington DC. That meant that their kids were no longer in the same schools, and they or their spouses no longer sat on the same PTA. Cookouts amongst Democrats and Republicans ceased - yes, they had happened at one time. Folks who fought with vigor while in session, were able to be friends outside of work. All this ceased. Those who did stay in DC, moved to private subdivisions. Most now rent an apartment in DC and go home on the weekends. The result of all this is the politicians no longer see each other as humans, but as opposing forces with no feelings - inhuman.
Frankly, that is a significant issue with the online world we live in. Yes, I am including our own forum in that. We forget that those we are debating are also humans - humans who have differing opinions for one reason or another, but at the end of the day, they are still humans. Though I've not been to a retreat, I can say with certainty that this is what makes them so special. The person you might debate there is no longer a nameless, faceless, feelingless being, but instead, you can have the debate and see emotions, convictions, and belief. While you might still disagree, the disagreement isn't void of the human side of things. Yes, face-to-face conversations get spirited, and sometimes enemies are made, but more often than not, people cannot be cruel to someone they look in the eyes.
Sadly, this is the nature of the world we live in. I wish I knew an answer that would fix it, but we are, as a society, in a tailspin of hatred and intolerance. Before someone brings it up, yes, we as Christians have convictions, and yes, we should stand on those convictions, but no, we don't have to be jerks while doing it (not saying anyone is, merely saying I see it ALL THE TIME).
Good point, it is also the age of lack of empathy. Online bullying and name calling.
The internet abuse is largely to blame for this; we even see among Christian brothers harsh speech and unempathetic insults all over the web. A dehumanization of people as not being the imagers of G-d so it's ok to talk to each other by whatever condescending impulse strikes us at that moment if we disagree.
One reason I refuse to use Facebook among other such wicked media.
The evil tongue is too easily repeated there. It's just so easy to disparage each other with a click "liking" a bad comment or such.
It's also just too easy to say things to other people we wouldn't dream to say to them in church or eye to eye (with them towering over us
)May Hashem protect this forum and all the brothers and sisters here from giving in to the inclination to dehumanize and therefore easily insult one another by name calling or any other means.
Last edited:
The slow death of a liberal arts education is the straw that will break our societal backs.
I am not an advocate for "everyone needs college". Some people like to fix and build things, and a college education only gets in the way of that in most cases.
If you do go to college, you immediately segregate yourself according to a narrow course of study...a "major", where you close out other disciplines rather than opening yourself up to them.
College students increasingly see their undergraduate prerequisites as hurdles to get over, rather than mountains to climb for a better view. Most universities are wastelands of Balkanization.
It was revolutionary a few decades ago for football players to study ballet. The point? By using your body in ways you never had, you actually broaden the ways you can use it.
The UFC is a prime example of how formerly isolated forms of martial arts were coalesced to form a stronger unit by accommodation, not exclusion.
The human genome is strengthened by diversity, not homogeneity.
I am not an advocate for "everyone needs college". Some people like to fix and build things, and a college education only gets in the way of that in most cases.
If you do go to college, you immediately segregate yourself according to a narrow course of study...a "major", where you close out other disciplines rather than opening yourself up to them.
College students increasingly see their undergraduate prerequisites as hurdles to get over, rather than mountains to climb for a better view. Most universities are wastelands of Balkanization.
It was revolutionary a few decades ago for football players to study ballet. The point? By using your body in ways you never had, you actually broaden the ways you can use it.
The UFC is a prime example of how formerly isolated forms of martial arts were coalesced to form a stronger unit by accommodation, not exclusion.
The human genome is strengthened by diversity, not homogeneity.
Great article, its true, many people have been socially programmed to react emotionally instead of being open minded and using logical reasoning. That makes it less likely to see unknown truths. Its part of cognitive dissonance? Remember what happened to Steven sharing a truth in acts 7: 54 and how the crowd gnashed on him with their teeth? Creepy it happened even in those days.
I have encountered this before. Ultimately we have to discern where to cast pearls.
@cubanito, I think you mean denial when you say cognitive dissonance in your recent posts.
Cognitive dissonance isn't a behavior, it's discomfort — specifically "the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values." One might also call it "psychic pain".
Cognitive dissonance isn't a behavior, it's discomfort — specifically "the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values." One might also call it "psychic pain".
Last edited:
Yes.. Denial based on a discomfort, comparing what we hold as current reality with new conflicting information.
Is like our minds do a strange software checksum, to keep us comfortable or in a perceived safe zone. What if we adopted the wrong program?
Human nature is to stay comfortable in the path of least emotional resistance.
This is just something that we as humans choose by natural default, as the scripture says in Romans 3:11.
Is like our minds do a strange software checksum, to keep us comfortable or in a perceived safe zone. What if we adopted the wrong program?
Human nature is to stay comfortable in the path of least emotional resistance.
This is just something that we as humans choose by natural default, as the scripture says in Romans 3:11.
Romans 3:10-12
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after G-d.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
I actually like where you were leading about the path of least resistance and our own sinful natures. The only thing I would like to through my 2 cents at is ,we choose the path of least resistance because of our sinful nature not because it is our nature.
Exax
One scripture that stuck to me was Eze 14
Christ is the truth, light, if we don't actively love truth, we get something else dark. According to Eze 14 who answers us according to our heart's stumbling blocks? Being supernaturally locked in error is very scary.
Exactly, our sinful nature makes us this way. We choose depending on our heart.
One scripture that stuck to me was Eze 14
Christ is the truth, light, if we don't actively love truth, we get something else dark. According to Eze 14 who answers us according to our heart's stumbling blocks? Being supernaturally locked in error is very scary.