Intellectual Honesty

[ QUOTE ]
You should put that in your original claim, then; if you're going to rely on as nitpicky a definition of conviction as you must in order for your argument to be about something, then you should also say that your argument doesn't really apply to probably 99% of what there is in the world to have convictions about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's a surprising claim. One look at this forum reveals that many people have convictions about abstract concepts in religion and philosophy. The most heated debates are those that science cannot resolve.

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Then why waste time on philosophy at all? What do you gain from thinking about it if you can't actually learn anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, this goes back to Socrates, the wisest man in Athens because he knew he didn't know anything. Philosophy isn't a discipline of concrete realities. I think it's best served for speculating how to live life, which is not something fact-based. It entails abstract thought. Convictions therefore are a hinderance philosophical progress.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
One look at this forum reveals that many people have convictions about abstract concepts in religion and philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. Who said they didn't? What I said was that this kind of stuff is probably about 1% of what there is in the world to have convictions about. I think I'm being generous in that regard.

[ QUOTE ]
Philosophy isn't a discipline of concrete realities. I think it's best served for speculating how to live life, which is not something fact-based. It entails abstract thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if one cannot come to conclusions about how to live one's life - after all, things like conclusions and facts and beliefs get in the way of our progress - then how is it helping you to do so?

Further, to turn your own argument against you, your apparent fixation on perfect open-mindedness being best is itself a conviction that you shouldn't have. I just blew my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Further, to turn your own argument against you, your apparent fixation on perfect open-mindedness being best is itself a conviction that you shouldn't have. I just blew my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give up already [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Give up already [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously. If you're willing to accept this as an axiom, why not other things?

Okay, I'll play along. This isn't an axiom, it's more of an anti-axiom. It doesn't proclaim any truth, but is a guidline for how to search for truth.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think my main thesis is this: conviction is a strong word that implies the thinker has already come to his conclusion and is willing to probe no more. Opinion is not as strong of a word, and I realize the necessity of having opinions in any kind of debate. However, when one comes to a conviction to himself, even under the cloak of "faith," he can no longer probe any deeper. He will inevitably dodge tough questions, because it is human nature to do so. Intellectual dishonesty is precisely this; namely, the failure to continue searching for answers .

[/ QUOTE ]
No biggy but I disagree because I don't think the bit in bold is correct. Someone can recognise they have stopped searching for new answers about certain things.

chez

You're right, I left that one rather incomplete. Expanded definition:

Intellectual dishonesty is precisely this; namely, the failure to continue searching for the answer to a given question without exploring all the possible solutions from the perspectives available, IF a conclusion is settled upon with full knowledge that these other perspectives exist, and is believed 100% to be true, as a conviction is. However, to be truly intellectually honest means also to question oneself rigorously, so that when one comes to some sort of conclusion, one is still not satisfied until one examines the motivations for coming to this conclusion, especially psychological motivations. The intellectually honest man is keenly aware of the temptations certain ideologies have over others and he must be careful to avoid settling upon one because it suits his life better. And even when he has examined every possible angle, he must leave himself open to new perspectives and information, so that he can still change his position if it becomes reasonable to do so. Therefore, he can never have a total conviction about anything, and he will die without ever having fooled himself.

Yes, I set the bar pretty high.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Good, I purposely made this vague.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think that's intellectually dishonest?