>>But 'you', "advocate", have FAILED to SHOW that you are Truly OPEN and CURIOUS. Well to me anyway.
Openness is only a valid criteria for areas in which you are not already more expert than the information you'd otherwise be open to. It is not a valid criteria at large. The best philosopher cannot be open to Ayn Rand's philosophy. The best philosopher cannot be open to the idea that murder can be ethically progressive. And so forth.
But as to me personally, i'm not making a case here that i'm the best philosopher, which is incidentally true, but that it is possible to know what the best criteria are, as indicated above. The attributes of a best philosopher are incidental to having the best philosophy. The attributes for "best philosopher" must not exclude whoever has the best philosophy. You're putting the cart before the horse, really.
When one was open enough long enough, they'll have sufficient information to no longer need to be open. To be curious enough long enough, they'll have gathered enough information to be expert in their field, no longer curious about those things. So, your criteria, while desirable in general cannot be necessary attributes of the best philosopher particularly. They must be open and curious in Some respect, in order to allow in potential (hypothetical) new information, but that's not about what they know already at all.
>>In fact, you have alluded to the fact that you BELIEVE that 'you', "advocate", are the best philosopher, and with the best philosophy. Or, have I got this WRONG here?
I believe that the former point intrinsically attains from the latter, and the latter can be better supported with respect to myself than any other philosopher of whom i'm aware. But again, this thread is supposed to be about the sufficiency of those attributes and arguments, not who they're specifically applicable to.
>>OF COURSE, someone can be indoctrinated into some 'thing', but then realize that 'that' was completely or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, and so THEN be able to learn more and/or anew (better). But while you are 'indoctrinated' into 'that' [i]what IS[/i] False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, then you are OBVIOUSLY NOT OPEN and NOT CURIOUS to ANY thing other than 'that', what 'you' BELIEVE is true, right, and/or correct.
Everyone is indoctrinated as a child. To overcome it can be considered a necessary attribute of a good philosopher, but to have avoided that conundrum cannot, is my point.
The degree to which i am not open is the degree to which i can prove my case sufficiently for all intents and purposes as it already is. There's no reason to be open when what you've already got is both necessary and sufficient, so while openness per-se is obviously a criteria for Becoming a good philosopher, it cannot be a valid criteria for Being the best philosopher.
As for curiosity, i'll merely point out that this document (
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 6y_pfCpYg/) adequately proves my commitment to curiosity, as if it were even legitimately questionable. And this one (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xbz ... Bmb2sl0do/) shows how i've integrated ideas from the entire spectrum of philosophy - which proves sufficient openness.
