The answer is never…with caveats.
An interesting article by WSU’s Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College and Professor of Philosophy, John Corvino Ph.D I’d seen in the Freep, but originally published over at https://theconversation.com.
As a college dean, I regularly observe campus controversies about the Israel-Hamas war, race relations and other hot-button issues. Many of these concern free speech – what students, faculty and invited speakers should and shouldn’t be allowed to say.
The primary argument for the big tent approach is rooted in intellectual humility: properly recognizing the limitations to what each of us knows. In one sense, it is a recognition of human fallibility – which, when combined with hubris, can have disastrous results.
[Philosopher Jeremy] Fantl grants that such engagement can have value but worries that it is often ineffective or dishonest. Ineffective, if you tell your opponents from the outset “You’re not going to change my mind” – a conversation-stopper if anything is. Dishonest, if you pretend to engage open-mindedly when you’re really not.
Possibly a little headier than what you were expecting in a Lemmy post but, hey, I’m trying my best to raise us all up a little.
(obligatory – paradox of tolerance)
Thanks for that; another wonderful thing about being human and human society, dilemmas like that. No one said vigilance wasn’t part of the equation. If we were chimpanzees—as we are prone to imitating occasionally—we’d kill and eat, or merely banish, the “transgressors.”
I like to think we’re better than that.
Open-minded is letting everyone speak their mind. You’re willing to hear someone out, and if they have a convincing argument, you might change your mind.
It doesn’t mean you tell people to shut the fuck up when their speech is odious, offensive, ignorant, inappropriate, or inciting violence. When you don’t find the arguments persuasive, that doesn’t mean that you were lying about being open minded.
Help me to be on the same page as you.
Is your comment a response to a specific passage from the linked article or is it just your translation?
