I have to say, that I'm definitely the humblest one here, without a doubt, no contest. Personally I just notice the massive blindspot I try to create for myself in order to ignore every sin while I readily condemn it in others. I see the aburdity and irony of my special pleading, and knots I tie myself in with rationalizations and justifications.

Lol... NO! I am the humblest one here!

To the extent we believe in our opinions, we can't but will them, and humility of any positive value is a strategy in this regard along with everything else. So, the humble person deals with the philosophical bigot by graciously offering him their spade to dig his hole, but steadfastly refusing to join him there.

Yeah, the humble would be passive aggressive. We're all bigots.

Nice...

I don't think your definition is really adequate. Surely it must take account of the fact that the conviction in the superiority of the bigot's views is maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. In other words there is a degree of irrationality required to being a bigot rather than simply a well-informed individual. If one's views are in fact superior then it is entirely right to be so convinced. It isn't egotistical to be correct. It can't be wrong to be right, only to believe you are when you are not.

The moment I become perfectly humble I insist the whole world know.

Classical logic obeys the principle of the excluded middle, meaning every version of formal philosophy is biased explaining why it historically has been used to promote intolerance and bigotry. Where you decide to draw the lines and call someone a bigot rather than merely intolerant is one of those popular issues they argue over.

People don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong, but some people hate it so much that they simply refuse to accept it, regardless of the proof. It might then seem liberating for them to assume that everyone has just their own opinion, that no-one is more right than any other, and that those who believe that some beliefs are right would be bigots. But who is the bigot? Hardly the one who accepts the risk of being proved wrong.

the humble person deals with the philosophical bigot by graciously offering him their spade to dig his hole, but steadfastly refusing to join him there. — Baden

Perfect.

I don't think your definition is really adequate. Surely it must take account of the fact that the conviction in the superiority of the bigot's views is maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. In other words there is a degree of irrationality required to being a bigot rather than simply a well-informed individual. If one's views are in fact superior then it is entirely right to be so convinced. It isn't egotistical to be correct. It can't be wrong to be right, only to believe you are when you are not. — Barry Etheridge

It wasn't my definition, it was the dictionaries.

I see what your saying but you are missing something. It is not just simply a well-informed individual as it is a well-informed individual who is SO well-informed that he doesn't care to open his mind up to other possible interpretations (with or without evidence).

So it is not just about the bigot's views being maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. I agree that that is a considerable part of it but it is also a smugness that he feels when he is right and doesn't even bother to look for alternative viewpoints.

That is why the definition in the OP includes "close-mindedness"

The moment I become perfectly humble I insist the whole world know. — wuliheron

Got anymore oxymoronic statements like that? lol

Are there not strategies used by humble people to avoid this kind of thing? — intrapersona

One strategy would be to not participate in discussion with them in the first place.

Though we have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with exigency.

One strategy would be to not participate in discussion with them in the first place.

Though we have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with exigency — darthbarracuda

From what we have already discussed, it seems everyone is a bigot because people don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong.

So you would in fact be promoting the death of philosophy. Noooo, no, nope, no no no, I am sorry, that simply won't do darthbarracuda... we need something better... YOUR WRONG!

People don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong, but some people hate it so much that they simply refuse to accept it, regardless of the proof. — jkop

Yes, because of Cognitive Disonance and The Ego.

Have you noticed stuffy people always want to be right? They are usually the most egotistical kind.

I think what might be best is to absolutely agree with them on everything but yet somehow disprove them while still agreeing with them. Sounds paradoxical? Not so, one can agree that he is both right and wrong at the same time.

Then again, perhaps that wouldn't work.

Perhaps we should show aggression and scold them, nay that won't work either.

So, the humble person deals with the philosophical bigot by graciously offering him their spade to dig his hole, but steadfastly refusing to join him there — Baden

That definitely solves how to deal with them but how is it performed?

Accepting that I might be wrong doesn't preclude me from having an opinion to begin with, or to have a sense of exigency based on that opinion. The fact that I'm willing to discuss something means that I'm open to be proven wrong.

That's the difference between an open-minded and a close-minded person: whether or not they are willing to have their beliefs changed.

However, there are some things that have exigency and thus can't be legitimately postponed forever for the sake of discussion.

Perhaps you can't see sarcasm because of the text but I was using capitalization to be ironic. Or maybe you are just so stale and serious that you never bother to reply to humour and turn everything in to a lifeless mush. Either way, your still wrong.

The fact that I'm willing to discuss something means that I'm open to be proven wrong. — darthbarracuda

That is not the same with a Bigot. The Bigot pretends that he is willing to discuss something because he pretends he's open to be proven wrong but really his motive is to prove him self above others. To inflate his ego with the feeling of being right and another wrong.

That's the difference between an open-minded and a close-minded person: whether or not they are willing to have their beliefs changed. — darthbarracuda

That's true I agree. I try my best to do that but it is hard sometimes to know whether it is reason I am listening to or whether it is my own ego I am listening to.

When I try and reform my beliefs from what others have advised it is hard to find the distinction between reason and ego because they are both speaking out of one voice inside your head.

However, there are some things that have exigency and thus can't be legitimately postponed forever for the sake of discussion. — darthbarracuda

such as?

That is not the same with a Bigot. The Bigot pretends that he is willing to discuss something because he pretends he's open to be proven wrong but really his motive is to prove him self above others. To inflate his ego with the feeling of being right and another wrong. — intrapersona

Sounds like most bloggers.

such as? — intrapersona

Do we have an ethical priority to help those in need?

I don't think your definition is really adequate. If one's views are in fact superior then it is entirely right to be so convinced. It isn't egotistical to be correct. It can't be wrong to be right, only to believe you are when you are not. — Barry Etheridge

It wasn't my definition, it was the dictionaries. — intrapersona

If that's what the dictionary says, then the dictionary is an ass.***

***
"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically, "the law is an ass — an idiot.”

― Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

If that's what the dictionary says, then the dictionary is an ass.*** — Bitter Crank

Cambridge: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life

Merriam: person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Wiki: The English noun bigot is a term of abuse aimed at a prejudiced or closed-minded person

Me: A bigot is a prejudiced or more aptly a closed-minded person who is convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and against those who hold different opinions.

Sound pretty similar to me.

Do we have an ethical priority to help those in need? — darthbarracuda

Ask Ayn Rand... acording to her, selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice

Ayn Rand isn't exactly a great example of philosophy in action.

I'm writing a book on the subject and this website doesn't have enough bandwidth.

It seems that egotism is directly disadvantageous to philosophical conversation, — intrapersona

One would guess so, but I think that both professional and serious amateur philosophers tend to be "bigots" (in the way you're defining that) and egoists.

Conversational grace, especially over any sort of sustained interaction, is most often directly proportionate to just how similar the other person's views are to one's own.

Philosophy attracts egoists, because the game--well, and especially achieving any notoriety in the game--more or less amounts to telling everyone else that they were missing some important considerations in their thinking about things, if it doesn't amount to telling everyone else that they were basically thinking about things incorrectly.

Less egotistical people attracted to philosophy focus on being a <insert philosopher of your choice here> scholar, but that's the minority.

Utilitarian. Self-interest. Chivalry. Equality. What would you prefer society to model itself under?

A lack of egoism or of being a bigot does not equal humility, humility is about something else. A good philosopher is one who simply considers all ideas and approaches as approaches to be developed, revised, questioned and seeks healthy balanced debate.

Humility is (apart from the humility which is a result of conditioning, mental trauma, or disease) an outlook, approach, technique in self development, or spirituality. A tool which some people may recommend egotists to practice to escape their plight. But which is also utilised in mysticism in exploring, or developing the self.