I think we argue a position to bring out all the fine details of that position, and also bring out the details of the counter position which someone else is arguing. The devil is in the details. We should be ready and willing to change our beliefs when the details don't work out right.

Pride, obviously.

As I've said to a number incorrigibles, dogmatists or bullshitters here on TPF

I'm here to expose poor thinking and not to persuade you of anything.

It's either pride or insecurity that blocks one from admitting one is wrong when one has been shown to be wrong.

I'm here to expose poor thinking

And doubtless you've never failed.

Rather than admit they are wrong, people will cling to their position to the very end. — hypericin

Perhaps some cannot see the wrong in their doing while others may be incorrigible demagogues.

What is "wrong" and how does one define and measure this idea against what is "right", which is another idea to grasp. Are these positions perspectives?

While a willingness to question and examine oneself as well as others while shedding biases when they are made known seems an important element to cultivating flexibility, but to what end and what is the core motivation?

If we somehow decide that subject A is right and subject B is wrong, and subject B yields to this and thus changes his position to match that of A, what then? What do you do with that? What is the function of this determination and the resulting shift. How many moments will pass before Subject C comes along and it is somehow determined that both Subject A and now B are wrong and Subject C is right. Then what? Positions change again, resulting in another shift.

If everything is always changing, does it really matter who in whichever moment is right or wrong or is this not leading to a deeper inquiry ofwhat is true and what is false?

Doubtless you are mistaken.

If we somehow decide that subject A is right and subject B is wrong, and subject B yields to this and thus changes his position to match that of A, what then? What do you do with that? What is the function of this determination and the resulting shift. How many moments will pass before Subject C comes along and it is somehow determined that both Subject A and now B are wrong and Subject C is right. Then what? Positions change again, resulting in another shift. — Universal Student

It's not that one is right, and the other is wrong, the thesis and antithesis sublate each other, and the resulting synthesis creates something new. Hegelian dialectics.

Your consideration in reply is appreciated. Would you say that we are shaping one another in the processes towards revealing fundamental principles and truth?

Yes, that's a good way to put it, the learning process is a shaping. If one's mind is completely closed, as hypericin is afraid of in the op, then no shaping (learning) occurs. In Hegelian dialectics, which I briefly described, the synthesis called sublation is described as "becoming". What is proposed as "what is" is sublated with "is not", and this is synthesized into a new proposal of "what is" (like a compromise), to be sublated all over again, onward and onward, in a process which is not circular, but more like a spiral. This is very similar to what you described, except that position C is a synthesis of the opposing A and B.

I think we argue a position to bring out all the fine details of that position, and also bring out the details of the counter position which someone else is arguing. The devil is in the details. We should be ready and willing to change our beliefs when the details don't work out right. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a simple and useful way of looking at opposing positions. Thank you for sharing. It seems like if we approach arguments from a space of willingness to break down belief systems with understanding, not just in the other but with a readiness also to put our own viewpoint under examination; that we can work together to help one another achieve greater degrees of clarity.

So instead of stating any one person is, "right" or "wrong", or even that it doesn't matter which is which, we can further simplify this by stating that there is is no right or wrong. There is merely that position which is different from another and is subject to change.

In attempts to reveal ultimate truth, we must be willing to put that pursuit first before ourselves and that which we have clung to up until any given moment when we may need to return it because it is fully realized to be false.



Perhaps then, this is an aspect of why humans often hold fast to their position even when the details are laid bare. That core readiness is undeveloped. Like a child grasping a comforting blanket, they are not ready to let go. You can't rush fruit to ripen.Though you can create favorable conditions to speed up the process a smidge in some instances.

Yes, that's a good way to put it, the learning process is a shaping. If one's mind is completely closed, as hypericin is afraid of in the op, then no shaping (learning) occurs. In Hegelian dialectics, which I briefly described, the synthesis called sublation is described as "becoming". What is proposed as "what is" is sublated with "is not", and this is synthesized into a new proposal of "what is" (like a compromise), to be sublated all over again, onward and onward, in a process which is not circular, but more like a spiral. This is very similar to what you described, except that position C is a synthesis of the opposing A and B. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you. This brings clarity! Instead of shifts in perspective which re-enforce circular patterns and loops that leave no wiggle room for change or the expansion of understanding, we have this spiral pattern allowing us to be more flexible and adaptable so that we can learn from our mistakes and thus improve as a species.

So instead of stating any one person is, "right" or "wrong", or even that it doesn't matter which is which, we can further simplify this by stating that there is is no right or wrong. There is merely that position which is different from another and is subject to change. — Universal Student

Think of "right" and "wrong" as being determined by the current norms of the society. In this sense, there is in many cases a valid right and wrong, what is consistent with conventional principles. However, when we seek what you call "ultimate truth", we have to have some way to go beyond right and wrong, because the conventional principles which constitute "right", in one's society, may not be consistent with the ultimate truth. In other words, we need to be free to question the current norms of our society, in the way of the skeptic

The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer. — Cunningham's Law

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Think of "right" and "wrong" as being determined by the current norms of the society. In this sense, there is in many cases a valid right and wrong, what is consistent with conventional principles. However, when we seek what you call "ultimate truth", we have to have some way to go beyond right and wrong, because the conventional principles which constitute "right", in one's society, may not be consistent with the ultimate truth. In other words, we need to be free to question the current norms of our society, in the way of the skeptic — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. Thank you for the reply. Bringing society into it gives me some things to digest.

The desire to be right is stronger (emotionally) than the desire to find & know the truth. In essence ego ante omnia (I before all) [Google translate)

My guess? Ossified belief systems, ego and cognitive dissonance.

For too many, admitting you are wrong is even more (emotionally/cognitively) difficult than making the effort to discern / acknowledge what is and is not the case.

That’s weird.

It as if there were something shameful about being wrong, which is ridiculous in any context, let alone philosophy discussion. — hypericin

I'll get started with the mea culpa:

:cool:

It's all my fault
I must have
done somebody wrong
Oh yeah ...

Oh, I almost forgot ...

Jainism has two intriguing concepts.

1. Anekantavada (no-one-sidedness): A claim can be true, but only so under one/more conditions. Remove/alter these conditions and it ceases to be true. The word "syād" or "syat" meaning maybe/perhaps prefaces all claims.


2. Nayavada (perspectivism): A naya is a point of view and there are as many truths as there are nayas.

A judge took his friend along to a court hearing. The plaintiff presented his story, the judge announced "you are right!" The defendant took the stand and presented his side of the story. The judge declared "you're right!" The friend, quite shocked by this, objected "they can't both be right!" The judge replied calmly, "you are also right!" :snicker:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed. — Deleted User

That's an excellent username. And what better way to admit that you were wrong, then to delete all your posts.

It probably is a humble thing to be able to admit that one is wrong. On this forum, and in many other public spheres there is often a lot of bravado, even some grandiosity. When I was working and before that there seems to be an emphasis on selling oneself, and an emphasis on making a big thing out of one's strength and playing down weaknesses. It is related to egocentricism and the notion of 'the big I am.' However, in spite of such values I would probably respect or admire someone admitting that they are wrong as a form of honesty and willingness to modify thinking. I wonder to what extent others may hold this view in spite of the ethos of defending one's position to the bitter end.

According to psychology humility gets easily confused with weakness and presenting oneself (too) vulnerable.

Projecting a facade of infallibility could be explained as yet a(nother) form of (social) escapism (hiding ones face) which as a consequence also prevents any (sincere) social contact as the 'subject' isnt true to form, i.e. remains 'unknown' to its surroundings.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed. — Deleted User


That's an excellent username. And what better way to admit that you were wrong, then to delete all your posts. — Metaphysician Undercover

A sort of "Cancel Culture" of TPF.

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

I hope I'm wrong!

More importantly, who is wrong about what and have they been sufficiently disabused by peer review/pressure. Can they get the cane? Or is humiliation of being called out as a wrong doer enough.