June 6, 2011
Scala-Play! Framework: Arguing about Anorm

The great difficulty in arguing a point without making headway is the determination of correctness: am I wrong, or just misunderstood?

September 14, 2009
"There is, however, a more general argument against reverence, whether for the Greeks or for anyone else. In studying a philosophy, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know that it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he as hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind."

Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy.

Mr. Russell makes a fascinating point, one which is applicable to more than philosophical thought. Our ability to communicate effectively is wholly dependant on our ability to sympathetically contextualize the argument of those with which we disagree, or agree, for that matter. Unbridgeable disagreements—an angry “You lie!” for instance—are not communication but are rather more akin to trench warfare: harmful to both parties, engendering of stagnation and, in the end, utterly pointless.