Probably one of those better understood by not asking what it means. — tim wood

Hiya Tim,
Before I began arguing with Aristotle, I was SittinWSocrates because I liked what he challenged me with, most applicable here is "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
I guess what you quoted is my take on that: If we are not able to be vulnerable, there would be no way for us to examine our lives, for we would only hear ourselves. Where as if you are able to be vulnerable, there is a better chance that you will be exposed to new thoughts and possibly new perspectives.

After hanging out with Socrates, I found I could relate to some of Aristotle's philosophies and it felt like a natural progression in learning and living the philosophy of Socrates. It was within Aristotle that I learned a very powerful idea which is "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.". Which is in essence what you are doing here on this thread. Can you see it?

I apologize if you knew all of this but I thought I would share with you, in the event that you didn't know. I am interested in what Philosophers you have felt akin to and maybe in time I will be fortunate enough to hear them from you.
Tiff

Hi Tiff. I like Heidegger; there seems such a richness of insight when I read him - or the better secondary literature on him.

A Commentary on Being and Time, Michael Gelvin

https://www.amazon.com/Commentary-Heideggers-Being-Time/dp/0875805442

Heidegger, an Introduction, Richard Polt

https://www.amazon.com/Heidegger-Introduction-Richard-Polt/dp/0801485649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500673879&sr=8-1&keywords=heidegger+an+introduction

Being and Time, Heidegger, trans. Joan Stambaugh

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Translation-Contemporary-Continental/dp/1438432763/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1500673951&sr=8-2&keywords=being+and+time+heidegger

Truth and Method, Gadamer, is on my night table, but that's a tough go.

"Able to be vulnerable" caught my attention for the potential for word play. I wonder if you might accept as a substitute "open minded," or perhaps just "openness"? Or is there something "vulnerable" uniquely captures?

Banno wrote something that comes pretty close to the idea of "vulnerable" I am using here.

. Posts that are so defensive are indicative of the lack of conviction in their author. A philosophical discussion cannot proceed only by attacking one's opponents. — Banno

What I am saying is that we have to be vulnerable enough on both sides of a discussion to learn. We have to find common ground as well as our differences in order to grow philosophically. That is not to say that everyone will encourage that vulnerability but if you read others for a while, you will see others sharing, often in the cover of jest, deep concerns, shared life struggles and other cornerstones of who we are, deep inside. A place we would normally protect in face to face interaction.
Does that help?

As a middle-class, middle-age white male in a suit, the most important, and hardest, lesson I have learned is to shut up an listen.

What I am saying is that we have to be vulnerable enough on both sides of a discussion to learn. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I guess I'm on an openness v. closedness axis and you're on trust v. risk. There are still aspects of "vulnerable" that I can't fit into this. But you're not asking me to. My difficulty is just with a word. If you think I get it, word notwithstanding, then maybe we should leave this. Or there's something I'm not getting.

An acquaintance, a young man in a suit, though a tough and well-traveled one, taught me a powerful trick. If he was speaking, on the instant any else spoke, he instantly stopped speaking and gave his attention to the new speaker. No anger or hostility.

I guess I'm on an openness v. closedness axis and you're on trust v. risk. — tim wood

I am very comfortable with the way you explained my position.