I am slowly making my way through the `History of Western Philosophy’ by Bertrand Russell.
What is interesting is just how `wrong’/`backward’/`prejudiced’ men such as Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were. What is also interesting is that they can be completely wrong/misleading and still have added value.
Kind of like the hundreds/thousands of scientists that methodically go about documenting all the things that aren’t a cure for AIDS. The people that get PHDs for saying, this doesn’t work.
Reading Dawkin’s `God Delusion’, and this book, I am being regularly reminded of how entrenched and how recent some gastly predjudices were a very real part of society. Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1976!
Maybe (?) with the flow of ideas being so much more rapid now we will be laughing at our own early beliefs latter in life.
I know of a few things I believed that I no longer do… How harshly should I judge my `former self’?
4 comments:
I think you should judge him very harshly.
If we don't know the arguments and evidence personally, and the experts are more or less divided, then we shouldn't have a strong opinion at all.
If we attach a very high probability to our opinion and it turns out that we're wrong, we should be embarrassed.
There is nothing embarrassing about changin the % we attach to opinions. so long as its for good reasons.
Ok... fine
I have been judged and found wanting.
Shew... my commentors have all turned hostile since their last birthday...
reading my posts backwards and have been hit by mulitple friendly fire.
you realise I apply the same logic to myself right?
I've enjoyed my recent comments. and keeping myself entertained is the name of the game
indeed...
Maybe, like Gladiators of old we will attract spectators.
You must be getting lonely :-)
Post a Comment