He's not talking about a formal debate, but something much more profound. It all would work just fine if people were honest and really wanted to diminish their egos. But most people are just egos in human form, and others are just walking opinions in human form. Their goal is to push their view on the opponent and to destroy him while coming out intact themselves. They will not follow what Jacob Needleman proposes, because they don't want to. Period.
Jacob I listened intently to what you were saying in this clip and found it most interesting. I would love you to say something more about the blocks to listening. Listening is such an essential part of effective communication.
I think Needleman's speech on achieving "personal morality" is easier to associate with every-day arguments where finding a middle ground is desirable. In a debate, however much I wish it weren't so, the participants need to be firmly set on their opinions and should be passionate when talking about it. A debate is not a disagreement, nor a place to find compromise; it's a specified discussion between two factions where the audience can listen to both sides and determine their own stand point.
I understand morality as something subjective, since what is moral in one culture is not in another. From that view I would say that listening is a critical part of human relations harmony. Thanks
Wise words on the beginnings of morality. Try it in combination with peircean abduction (a theory with axiological dimensions) to examine the next passionate argument.
A pursuit of truth is done in considering all of the possible ways that the other person could be right- to honestly interpret them in an attempt to integrate the ideas they have to offer with your own. Only when that final step is impossible, or happens with notable difficulty is it an honest moment to argue. Debate, however, is only done in considering all the possible ways your opponent is wrong. It is a dishonest approach with only convincing an audience, in mind.
@BoStevoD Don't you think that if Needleman's description of this actually ancient idea of how to reduce suffering in the world had been PRACTICED long before the Revolutionary War, that there would have been no need for it? That is the key, for me. It has to become a "way of life", and not just a tool to pick up when we have made a hopeless mess out of things by practicing bad habits otherwise. Of course you are correct that jumping into a hopelessly desperate situation like colonial -
Compromise is the womb within which a peaceful and progressive society can gestate. But there are times when it would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil. How do we distinguish between when a Faustian bargain and when we are simply striving for tolerance of alternative lifestyles and positions? Is it okay to bargain with the devil in the name of peace? When we refuse to compromise on moral grounds, are we imposing our values? It all depends on the situation.
I just went to this page because I wanted to comment that I am against listening to opinions with which I disagree, and, for that reason, I will not watch this video. :P
And objective morality exist, alain, however it's real possibility is not with much self work. Until then, one has to move by something, which is the same in everyone. That being conscience. Conscience can lead to a objective reality. Remorse of conscience is not subjective. It is felt everywhere the same. What needleman is opening up is a form of empathy. To suspend oneself, in order to draw in, as much as possible, anothers perspective. Then no longer you and you, but them and you
I stopped this video in the middle and wrote this. I am not sure about "fairness". Fairness exist before the discussion. We expect fairness. So, we are really not opened for something else.Perhaps stress. We may verbally come to agreement; but we may distorted language use. Perhaps physical reaction, often called violence.
@cooler393 ONCE ARM IN ARM, two people are deeply concerned about each others purposes and only then can a true resolution in truth be attained. Otherwise we get what we see for example in Israel/Palestine - hopeless, bloody, interminable conflict. THAT is what you get without a "meeting of minds". That is what you get with "debate", the etymology of which has more to do with quarreling and fighting than solving a problem.
So how we should deal with irreducible difference is open an objective space within our psyche wherein understanding can flourish between the two parties? Nonsense. Imagine settling class differences that way. Imagine the Revolutionary War being settled over tea and scones. For some reason, I don't think the Americans would have managed such radical breaks from tradition had they wasted their efforts on talking out their differences. Sometimes morality calls on us to fight for what is right.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
He's not talking about a formal debate, but something much more profound.
It all would work just fine if people were honest and really wanted to diminish their egos. But most people are just egos in human form, and others are just walking opinions in human form. Their goal is to push their view on the opponent and to destroy him while coming out intact themselves. They will not follow what Jacob Needleman proposes, because they don't want to. Period.
wow - that video really made me think. If you enter an argument to win, there is no way you can really understand what the other side is saying.
Jacob I listened intently to what you were saying in this clip and found it most interesting. I would love you to say something more about the blocks to listening. Listening is such an essential part of effective communication.
I think Needleman's speech on achieving "personal morality" is easier to associate with every-day arguments where finding a middle ground is desirable. In a debate, however much I wish it weren't so, the participants need to be firmly set on their opinions and should be passionate when talking about it.
A debate is not a disagreement, nor a place to find compromise; it's a specified discussion between two factions where the audience can listen to both sides and determine their own stand point.
I understand morality as something subjective, since what is moral in one culture is not in another. From that view I would say that listening is a critical part of human relations harmony. Thanks
that's one of my professors LOL San Francisco State!!!
True morality is revealed not in the listening - but in the action taken by what is heard.
Wise words on the beginnings of morality. Try it in combination with peircean abduction (a theory with axiological dimensions) to examine the next passionate argument.
A pursuit of truth is done in considering all of the possible ways that the other person could be right- to honestly interpret them in an attempt to integrate the ideas they have to offer with your own. Only when that final step is impossible, or happens with notable difficulty is it an honest moment to argue.
Debate, however, is only done in considering all the possible ways your opponent is wrong. It is a dishonest approach with only convincing an audience, in mind.
@BoStevoD
Don't you think that if Needleman's description of this actually ancient idea of how to reduce suffering in the world had been PRACTICED long before the Revolutionary War, that there would have been no need for it? That is the key, for me. It has to become a "way of life", and not just a tool to pick up when we have made a hopeless mess out of things by practicing bad habits otherwise. Of course you are correct that jumping into a hopelessly desperate situation like colonial -
Compromise is the womb within which a peaceful and progressive society can gestate. But there are times when it would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil. How do we distinguish between when a Faustian bargain and when we are simply striving for tolerance of alternative lifestyles and positions? Is it okay to bargain with the devil in the name of peace? When we refuse to compromise on moral grounds, are we imposing our values? It all depends on the situation.
Por favor, subtitulenlo en español, quien pueda, SOS!!!!!!Gracias.
I just went to this page because I wanted to comment that I am against listening to opinions with which I disagree, and, for that reason, I will not watch this video. :P
And objective morality exist, alain, however it's real possibility is not with much self work. Until then, one has to move by something, which is the same in everyone. That being conscience. Conscience can lead to a objective reality. Remorse of conscience is not subjective. It is felt everywhere the same.
What needleman is opening up is a form of empathy. To suspend oneself, in order to draw in, as much as possible, anothers perspective. Then no longer you and you, but them and you
@jizzfish Okay, are you joking? Because I was, but I made sure to note it by including the ":P" emoticon.
I stopped this video in the middle and wrote this. I am not sure about "fairness". Fairness exist before the discussion. We expect fairness. So, we are really not opened for something else.Perhaps stress. We may verbally come to agreement; but we may distorted language use. Perhaps physical reaction, often called violence.
@cooler393
ONCE ARM IN ARM, two people are deeply concerned about each others purposes and only then can a true resolution in truth be attained. Otherwise we get what we see for example in Israel/Palestine - hopeless, bloody, interminable conflict. THAT is what you get without a "meeting of minds". That is what you get with "debate", the etymology of which has more to do with quarreling and fighting than solving a problem.
@BoStevoD
OOPS! I meant to say below, "(continuing from below)"
@BoStevoD
(continuing from above) - America with such a new way of human interaction would have been unsuccessful.
So how we should deal with irreducible difference is open an objective space within our psyche wherein understanding can flourish between the two parties? Nonsense. Imagine settling class differences that way. Imagine the Revolutionary War being settled over tea and scones. For some reason, I don't think the Americans would have managed such radical breaks from tradition had they wasted their efforts on talking out their differences. Sometimes morality calls on us to fight for what is right.
2:00 This would be a good way to avoid the straw man fallacy.
thats not true
What pie in the sky dribble. Works in the world of academia but someone has to grow the 'taters and pump the gas.