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 not to persuade you of anything.
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
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
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
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
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
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
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed. — Deleted User
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.