I got an idea how to play a little philosophical "game"

[Barry_diller]

The Idea I think would be an interesting way to learn new ideas and greatly reduce your unknown conformation bias. I myself still fall in the trap by reaching a conclusion to quickly because it fits with my already existing values or oppose them

 

You start with writing down a lot of concepts about your generally values, ethics and opinions particular if they are controversial. You then wait for someone to write down theirs. If a person has a opposite value,idea,opinion or something that conflict with yours you "challenge" him/her to a debate about that subject. But here is the deal you HAVE to argue from the another persons perspective and the other person HAS to argue from yours

 

Example if I believe in free will and someone believes in determinism I will challenge that person and I will argue from determinism and he will argue from free will

 

It's hard but that is the point

I start out with some few

 

I'm Anarcho-capitalist

I'm Atheist

I'm Heterosexual (I know that preferences is not right nor wrong and is not normally debatable)

I don't believe that the Non-agression principle has PRACTICAL grey zones

I don't think there will be an economic collapse

I support abortion

I don't think "spiritual" approach in religion is dangerous as long you are not living after non philsophical "rules"

I don't support intellectual property

Wealth Equality is fundemental to a happy society

I Think that poverty can be solved if we just "redestributed" wealth around the world

I think bitcoin is flawed

 

hope someone can come up with something interresting

[Pepin]

Might be fun. I'm rather good at arguing the other side. Though, I dislike it because parts of me continuously respond to all of the bad arguments the moment. It on occasion introduces some ambivalence in that the argument you are making begins to convince yourself, and you have to step back and look at it what and why. A lot of times, I find really great arguments for the opposing side that are difficult to refute, though it is seldom that it holds.

[MysterionMuffles]

I think thats a good exercise. Keeps you distant from your emotional connection from your original beliefs. And no way would you want to let the other person win if youre competitive at all, thus opening your mind to their pov.

[Barry_diller]

Might be fun. I'm rather good at arguing the other side. Though, I dislike it because parts of me continuously respond to all of the bad arguments the moment. It on occasion introduces some ambivalence in that the argument you are making begins to convince yourself, and you have to step back and look at it what and why. A lot of times, I find really great arguments for the opposing side that are difficult to refute, though it is seldom that it holds.

I think that all of that is good, and you should be glad you still examine your core beliefs, although that might cause anxiety. You have a healthy skepticism, So are you ready to start the exercise?

I think thats a good exercise. Keeps you distant from your emotional connection from your original beliefs. And no way would you want to let the other person win if youre competitive at all, thus opening your mind to their pov.

exactly, and generally you pretty much own the debate if you can argue better from the other persons perspective, than he himself can.

[s.petry]

The Idea I think would be an interesting way to learn new ideas and greatly reduce your unknown conformation bias. I myself still fall in the trap by reaching a conclusion to quickly because it fits with my already existing values or oppose themYou start with writing down a lot of concepts about your generally values, ethics and opinions particular if they are controversial. You then wait for someone to write down theirs. If a person has a opposite value,idea,opinion or something that conflict with yours you "challenge" him/her to a debate about that subject. But here is the deal you HAVE to argue from the another persons perspective and the other person HAS to argue from yoursExample if I believe in free will and someone believes in determinism I will challenge that person and I will argue from determinism and he will argue from free willIt's hard but that is the pointI start out with some fewI'm Anarcho-capitalistI'm AtheistI'm Heterosexual (I know that preferences is not right nor wrong and is not normally debatable)I don't believe that the Non-agression principle has PRACTICAL grey zonesI don't think there will be an economic collapseI support abortionI don't think "spiritual" approach in religion is dangerous as long you are not living after non philsophical "rules"I don't support intellectual propertyWealth Equality is fundemental to a happy societyI Think that poverty can be solved if we just "redestributed" wealth around the worldI think bitcoin is flawedhope someone can come up with something interresting

 

When I was a couple (*caugh*) years younger and attending College I had an incredible Professor for my 2nd term of Philosophy.  I was lucky enough to maintain the same Professor for Ethics and Logic as well as the remainder of my Philosophy classes.

 

We (the class) had to argue both sides of the argument.  Faking it was not allowed, though in some instances it was difficult.  If you learn all of the counter arguments you become much more grounded in your own beliefs and opinions.  This would be the advice I give to anyone.  Debate with someone else, and change from the "thesis" to the "anti-thesis" at a different date.

 

The most difficult part of this is to find someone that likes Philosophy enough to debate you on both sides. 

[Barry_diller]

When I was a couple (*caugh*) years younger and attending College I had an incredible Professor for my 2nd term of Philosophy.  I was lucky enough to maintain the same Professor for Ethics and Logic as well as the remainder of my Philosophy classes. We (the class) had to argue both sides of the argument.  Faking it was not allowed, though in some instances it was difficult.  If you learn all of the counter arguments you become much more grounded in your own beliefs and opinions.  This would be the advice I give to anyone.  Debate with someone else, and change from the "thesis" to the "anti-thesis" at a different date. The most difficult part of this is to find someone that likes Philosophy enough to debate you on both sides.

well this would hopefully be the right place

[LovePrevails]

yes it's a good exercise

[Daxinth]

 

 

I'm Anarcho-capitalist

I'm Atheist

I'm Heterosexual (I know that preferences is not right nor wrong and is not normally debatable)

I don't believe that the Non-agression principle has PRACTICAL grey zones

I don't think there will be an economic collapse

I support abortion

I don't think "spiritual" approach in religion is dangerous as long you are not living after non philsophical "rules"

I don't support intellectual property

Wealth Equality is fundemental to a happy society

I Think that poverty can be solved if we just "redestributed" wealth around the world

I think bitcoin is flawed

 

I'm Anarcho-capitalist

I'm Atheist

Sexuality is unimportant.

Abortion is situational, and subjective. 

Religion will hopefully fade away as all other superstitions have.  Rationalizing non-sense to fill gaps in understanding has to end at some point. 

In an anarcho capitalist society intellectual property would have value and would be like other commodities.

I do not think that "we" can, but as individuals I believe that it will happen. 

I like Peter schiff's idea behind allowing the consumer to dictate what the currency they would like their wealth stored in.  If more banks did this we could see a rapid deployment of gold backed currency to compete with the dollar. 

I disregard the concept of fate/predestination.