Maturity, openness

[Brontosaurie]

Isn't it just cowardice to appreciate statements one wouldn't have made oneself? At least if, as is often the case, the attitude pertains to diversity of opinion instead of validation of self-expression?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Maybe this isn't maturity but simply just empathy?

Maturity is relative anyway. Sometimes I feel like a baby has more emotional stability over me. Or something like cats. Or a story of a cat doing stupid things.

 

[Yellow]

Cowardice, how? As in a lack of conviction?

 

[Hadoblado]

I guess if you value someone, and they say something that is so very intrinsically them (and not you), you can have great appreciation for the things they say without actually agreeing with them. It's a vicarious acceptance, as it stems from your relationship to the person, and not the statement itself. It's very intimate.

On a wider scale, this idea is being pushed in the name of tolerance. Moral/cultural relativism etc. Which I guess I can appreciate without actually agreeing with it

One of my clearest memories of this kind of acceptance was when my estranged sister finally elaborated on her beliefs. She described a very agnostic position, which I was intensely appreciative of. This puts me in the position of someone who is agnostic but who is generally dismissive of the agnosticism of others (they tend to replace atheism with it which seems silly), who then was relieved his sister was an agnostic because it could have been so much worse.

I guess I would describe that relativist interpretation as a kind of benchmark that demonstrates a particular level of thinking. Some people can't see much further so tend to glorify their acceptance relative to those who haven't made it yet (often hilariously driving their foot square into their mouth when they try to describe the category of outsiders they've surpassed). Some people get past it and try to find out what's actually right regardless of who's beliefs it goes against (though again, there's a subclass of people defining themselves relative to their position: those that want to swim against the current). Shit maybe I should make a flowchart

 

[Grayman]

Isn't it just cowardice to appreciate statements one wouldn't have made oneself? At least if, as is often the case, the attitude pertains to diversity of opinion instead of validation of self-expression?

Lol, you're an idiot.

Validation of self expression...? Are you using words outside their standard use just to be confusing or is this some form of self expression in itself?

 

[Pizzabeak]

Maybe, but what's it to you? Someone would say it's cowardice because it involves one person defending another, for free, assuming the involved parties have some kind of contract with one another. In the same scenario one person could feel the same way about something and, I suppose, not express it, therein having the other person eventually express it, not for them, but because they also feel the same way and are in more of a mood to say it, probably for kicks. Sounds like a tiny case of nihilism. If the person being defended did express it themselves it would just be normal. Although, doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have made the statement oneself.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Cowardice, how? As in a lack of conviction?

Not wanting to be directly associated with a statement one nevertheless overtly appreciates.

I guess if you value someone, and they say something that is so very intrinsically them (and not you), you can have great appreciation for the things they say without actually agreeing with them. It's a vicarious acceptance, as it stems from your relationship to the person, and not the statement itself. It's very intimate.

On a wider scale, this idea is being pushed in the name of tolerance. Moral/cultural relativism etc. Which I guess I can appreciate without actually agreeing with it

One of my clearest memories of this kind of acceptance was when my estranged sister finally elaborated on her beliefs. She described a very agnostic position, which I was intensely appreciative of. This puts me in the position of someone who is agnostic but who is generally dismissive of the agnosticism of others (they tend to replace atheism with it which seems silly), who then was relieved his sister was an agnostic because it could have been so much worse.

I guess I would describe that relativist interpretation as a kind of benchmark that demonstrates a particular level of thinking. Some people can't see much further so tend to glorify their acceptance relative to those who haven't made it yet (often hilariously driving their foot square into their mouth when they try to describe the category of outsiders they've surpassed). Some people get past it and try to find out what's actually right regardless of who's beliefs it goes against (though again, there's a subclass of people defining themselves relative to their position: those that want to swim against the current). Shit maybe I should make a flowchart

Excellent reflections.

I didn't think about the kind of situation you describe. It's elucidating to add that perspective. Nevertheless i maintain there is a common phenomenon of people using others as proxies for positions, and i wonder what to make of it. Is it neurotic manipulation cluster tumors or is it all fine?

Lol, you're an idiot.

Validation of self expression...? Are you using words outside their standard use just to be confusing or is this some form of self expression in itself?

That sentence was perhaps a bit unclear.

What i meant to emphasize was the distinction between open-mindedness as in welcoming others' personalities, and open-mindedness as in somehow appreciating opinions you wouldn't explicitly claim to be accurate or ever express yourself. In other words, it's the distinction of preference-variance and truth-claim-variance. Preference variance is, to me, legitimate (as people are different beings) while truth-claim-variance isn't (as a truth is the same for all minds, if formatted correctly).

My experience is that there is a lot of openness to truth-claim-variance being thrown around and i can't figure how it wouldn't be disingenuous and dishonest. The distinction was made to ensure that it's clear that it is this kind of "openness"/maturity/politeness i'm criticizing and not, say, appreciation of a person being more positive and extraverted than oneself, or people expressing themselves through art one wouldn't or couldn't produce oneself. I'm not sure the distinction is valid but it is prerequisite.

If there is more substance behind your calling me an idiot, i'd like to know.

 

[Hadoblado]

Some people try to collect the whole set, to insulate against the notion they are intolerant. The prefix before the 'but...' (e.g. I've got gay/bi/trans/black/asian/racist/nerd/bogan/goth/conservative/liberal friends, but... ). Demonstrable tolerance opens up doors to not being perceived as an asshole, whether or not you are one. It's also a peripheral demand to have one's opinion respected in the same way.

Now I want to see what the correlation between altruism, claimed altruism, and expected reciprocation is...

I guess I could be a little less cynical and float the notion that people just like learning about different perspectives, even though most people I'd lump in as exhibiting this openness fall frustratingly short when prodded even a little. I derive enjoyment from seeing how someone else's beliefs/opinions work, it'd be silly to dismiss the notion that others do.

 

[Yellow]

Not wanting to be directly associated with a statement one nevertheless overtly appreciates.

I suppose that would be cowardice. "I support you up until the point that you incur negative consequences for your statement, then, I want no part of it"? That certainly appears to be shady as fuck.

However, this is entirely different from, say, playing devil's advocate. I don't think that's a sign of spinelessness at all. In fact, it takes a certain strength to voice to an opposing argument. The same is true when entertaining an idea you don't necessarily agree with. It can be an exercise in transparency of reason to give an unsavory idea a fair trial.

 

[QuickTwist]

Who's to say the statement wasn't meant at the time it was made? Maybe that person has a change of heart and has changed their views. How do you determine when a person means it in the way that it is a way to define them over a long period of time? What if the person is simply confused over what they believe and are searching for that very thing and trying things out to narrow it down?