I don't particularly care about the honest/dishonest distinction when it comes to conversation - people are often far more ignorant than they are malicious. They don't know what they don't know.Dimebag wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:24 amI guess it depends on a persons purpose for doing philosophy. If your aim is simply to debate your point ad infinitum then I guess that is being achieved, but if your aim is to have an honest conversation with the possibility of both parties learning something then I think it’s important to not keep your positions so heavily fortified in the rare event that you might have something to learn from others.
I’m not point the finger at you in particular but this conversation in general is basically like WWI trench warfare.
Worse yet, those pursuing philosophy often have no clue what answers they are even looking for, nor do they recognise the flaws in their own positions.
It's like a puppy chasing its own tail. Amusing to watch, but that's about it.