Kavin, last week I was thinking about persuasion, something close to the nature of your post .
Here is what I thought:
Persuasion
What are the reasons, for such desire?
If what I say interests you, a feeling of connect ness begins to form.
I become warmth toward you.
I get the pleasure of your interest, and you get the gift of my ideas.
We may disagree on some issues, but the pleasure to share ideas
and the enrichment of our knowledge is much greater than our diversities, which are normal to exist.
To have someone interested to my ideas and to be myself interested to someone else’s
ideas, is a difficult task, which requires a strong will from both parts before a reciprocal understanding and respect is established.
To understand someone else, even on purely intellectual level, is never easy.
Openness to ideas and argumentative sharpness are most of the time not equal.
Those with strong desire to persuade are unlikely to yield to persuasion easily.
They are as stubborn as their persuasive drive is strong.
To fight a person we give him reason , but how far can he go?
At the end of reason comes persuasion.
A natural question to ask is; but isn’t it possible to persuade by logic alone? Of course;
But honestly, how many of you have witnessed, out side a well defined context
Logic to prevail? Very rare I would say!
Just imagine how logic would work when there is our profession and personal interest at stake? Given the eagerness to win on one side, and the resistance to defend on the other,
Even professional competence may not be enough to ensure understanding or agreement
on even simple points.
Many philosophers and scientists find very hard to understand others of their same profession. They have a mutual resistance to ideas other than their own.
Two philosophers know to be resistant to others ideas were; Kant, and Leibniz.
In a letter written in 1675, Leibniz describes how the style of philosophers like Bacon and
Gassendi, attracts him, while philosophers like Galileo repel him.
The reason was that to understand them requires” Deep Meditation” Finding it difficult
He explains, to follow closely written or geometrical arguments.
This is what Leibniz wrote ” Personally, though I have always loved to think by myself, I have always found it hard to read books ,which, one cannot understand with out much meditation, for in following one’s thoughts one follows a certain natural inclination and so gain profit with pleasure. One is violently disturbed, in contrast, when compelled to follow the thought of some else.”
Kant in a letter written when he was seventy, tells of the great difficulty he has in grasping other philosophers’ ideas. He could grasp the writing of his opponent only with the most extreme effort, because it was impossible for him to live his system of thought
To understand someone else.
He admitted this to himself so he left the defense of his philosophy to the students and to his friends. Because Leibniz and Kant were original creative philosophers their difficulty in following others is the observe of their intensity of thought in their own direction and their own needs.
Ayn Rand was like Kant and Leibniz, she would use questions and suggestion of others
Merely to stimulates and to set the wheels on her own thoughts.
A philosopher is naturally more difficult to persuade philosophically, than a layman.
To every philosopher even his allay, is his opponent, because , when their mutual opponent is absent, the allies’ differences grow more apparent. Just like in our own families, a brother or a father who resembles us shares our sensitivities , knows our week and sore spots, end enters into our lives in every way.
(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/03, 3:09pm)
|
