I have a bad habit of talking to people about philosophical issues. Strictly speaking, it's not the talking that's the problem; it's how worked up I get over the question. I tend, especially after a round or six of Beirut, to get extremely excited about whatever deep question might be brought up. I have gotten into lengthy discussions on several occasions, which invariably last several hours and involve me speaking loudly and at great length, explaining to some poor, unsuspecting soul why their beliefs are wrong.
Now I, of course, think that I am perfectly in the right to pursue these discussions. I find it infinitely fascinating to discover truth by means of conversation and reason. I don't think I'm hypocritical about it - I think, actually, that I have modified my own ideas with every discussion, occasionally in a fairly important way. For instance, this weekend saw a discussion in which I came to the conclusion that the universe will have an end, while trying to discuss the beginning of the universe with someone else. I find it somewhat ironic that at the end of this discussion in which I probably spoke 75% of the time, my worldview was probably the one, out of 5 in the room, that was most modified. In any case, that is not the point...
I find it very interesting - and occasionally frustrating - how uninterested people are in ascertaining truth in this fashion. After my presentation of a logical argument, the rebuttal, more often than not, consists either of an emotional appeal or a simple "no, I don't think you're right." It is strange to me that anyone could be content to continue believing in a worldview that the light of reason very handily defeats, even when this is shown to them. If someone were to come up with a reason why my own worldview is incorrect, I think I would want to know... how could I be content believing something that wasn't true? The rejection of reason especially shocks me in today's world, when people often pride themselves on having a "scientific" worldview, and not blindly believing in false deities or what have you. These are discussions that I have with university students, who one would think would have some interest in the pursuit of knowledge, who have not the slightest interest in discovering some of the most fundamental truths of reality. Often, they get offended if you even attempt to discuss such things with them, as if it's a personal insult to suggest that they might be wrong.
Is it not the most important quality of the scientific method that theories must be able to withstand a barrage of tests under all possible conditions? In an age of science, I would expect this kind of attitude to extend to the more fundamental searches for truth, as well.
9 comments:
No, I don't think you're right...
You're wrong. So just shut up.
*grins and applauds*
I can't say much with those two jokers getting here first, but just remember that Socrates was executed for just this sort of thing.
I don't think that people have actually changed very much in a couple of thousand years.
Ahhh.... poor babies!!
You think YOU'VE got it bad? Try preaching for a living!
Reverend
torq, whatever do you mean by saying we havn't changed much in a coupla thousand years? Keep in mind the earth is only 6,000 years old...
heh, that is nothing you have ever heard ME say!
Reverend: I thought about it, but they pay just isn't good enough for all the hassle! No Meg, I don't mean the Hasselhoff.
I find that after 6 rounds of Beirut, people don't think logically about most things. But perhaps that is because I hang out with people who have bad aim.
...try hanging out with people who have good aim. I assure you, that is far worse... or better, depending on how important your cognitive ability is to you at the moment.
Ben, unfortunately, neither thinks nor talks much different after six rounds of Beirut than he does after no rounds of Beirut. Merely louder - both the thinking and the talking.
Post a Comment