There have been many times where a medical or scientific study reaches a substantial and seemingly decisive discovery, yet one group will say that the philosophical implications of said study are the opposite of what conclusions a different group has reached. Failing that, one group will claim that it was a biased study and should be ignored. This is naturally not always the case, or people would never lose their faith ideals, nor would anybody ever be converted. However, when our views are challenged, we get our backs up almost without fail.
Most times it would seem opinions are still driven by emotions. We cling to principles first and justify them with reasons second, no matter how much we convince ourselves otherwise. We all believe we are correct, that's what an opinion is, but we must always enter discussions willing to be convinced that our opinion is false or else truth will never be ours. When a Christian begins to talk to me about atheism, I enter into the conversation with the mindset that they are trying to trap me and I put up a defence. I am already unwilling to listen before they even start talking. Likewise, when an atheist speaks to a Christian they will often feel that the atheist thinks they are stupid for believing what they believe, resulting in the conversation swiftly deteriorating into both people trying to prove their own intelligence without any mutual respect and nothing interesting or important happens. No new opinions are formed, old ones are reinforced. All that happens is that there are now two people who are a little bit more pissed at each other.
If I could just get past my own insecurity, if all of us could, I think we would understand each other much better. This particular type of insecurity makes us have long conversations without listening, and then we try to negate other people's experiences. We observe the world and make decisions based on our knowledge of it, but we also observe ourselves and reach conclusions from our feelings and experiences. To shut yourself out from the wealth of knowledge that is other people's experience or to say that yours are somehow more valid than somebody else's is to become ignorant to an integral part of nearly all aspects of the humanities.
See... this is why I try to prompt people to challenge me.
ReplyDeleteI want to be told I'm wrong and why I'm wrong. But people are not always willing to do this.
It is also unfair to expect others to defend their views on the spot. So while I'll state my position, I fully expect someone to come back later with a more thought-out version of what they meant to say.
This is how I pretty much had to deal with differences of opinion before I really knew how to communicate effectively. When someone challenged me I'd feel put on the spot and unable to articulate my reasoning.
I think, however, that learning to articulate your thoughts allows you to solidify and challenge them.
I digress... I think that fruitful discussion can happen and I always try to prompt others to say what they actually mean. I think that more people don't take me up on it is a disappointing reality indeed.