It seems to me that we see, in a vast majority of cases of philosophical discussion, the critical dissection of the offerings of the ‘other’. Often called an ‘argument’. Why you are incorrect (out of tune) from ‘this’ Perspective (vs ‘right’ and ‘wrong’).
[I’d rather avoid the obvious involvement of the ego in these discourses, as we know that we tend to emotionally identify with our thoughts/ego. And when someone presents a ‘different’ (rather than the egoic ‘wrong’) Perspective, the ego finds that as threatening. After all, we can’t both be right if your ‘view’ is different than mine. So, leaving the ego behind (to an extent); The classic philosophical discussion, philosophy being (among other things) ‘critical thought’, is argument, attack and defend! I critique your points from ‘here’ and you support them and critique my points from ‘there’.]
I find the aformenitioned form of discussion quite fruitful, in its place, but it seems that there are other, and perhaps more fruitful, forms (never used by me in the Platonic sense!) of discourse and communication amongst philosophers, and every one else for that matter.
We can, pendulum-like, swing from the critical 'why/how you are ‘incorrect’ (according to my ‘logic’ or ‘science’ or…) to understanding the context of the proposed perspective, why/how you are ‘correct’. You are obviously ‘correct’/‘right’/‘true’ from that Perspective. I am also so, from ‘this’ Perspective.
Perhaps I can gain in understanding and broadness of Perspective by evaluat8ing and applying critical thought to how you can be correct, your context, your reality, as can you.
Whereas the exclusive argument, no one ever seems to have their mind ‘changed’ by the ‘opposition’ (often a goal), it is a good form of honing one’s thoughts with the exclusion of the thought of the other. (win/lose)
The next form of ‘inclusive dialogue’ is ‘better’, perhaps, at the expansion of those thoughts for both participants. (Win/win)
The most divergent concepts, the most inconsistent, still exist and are a real feature of the complete Universe. So, perhaps there can be a shift toward the inclusive rather than the sole leaky ship 'why I’m right and you are wrong. Depending on context, we are both, at the same moment, both correct and incorrect, etc…
Maybe this attempt at ‘inclusivity’ might facilitate an ampathic ‘link’? That would be an ‘ultimate’ experience of the ‘other’ (no longer ‘other’ but one) Perspective.
Perhaps we might experiment with this ‘inclusive’ method of understanding/discourse around the forum and evaluate the results?
“Sounds stupid to me! How can he be ‘correct’? In what context can such nonsense be ‘correct’?” There will be energy expenditure, at least at first, if one is not used to such a diametrically opposite form of discourse, of thought. It does offer violence to the ‘common’ egoic way of doing things. (Difference is wrong/evil/bad/incorrect!)
Time, perhaps, for the pendulum to swing?
Thanks for reading this, and maybe giving it some thought. All Perspectives are real and appreciated.
What do you think (inclusively)?
peace
(also posted here.)