How many can argue an issue from more than 1 viewpoint & try to understand esp the views you disagree with?

Question

eg evolutionary biology and creationism, atheism and theisms, empiricism and rationalism and rationalism, etc, egoism and altruism etc

When I said "rationalism" the second time, I meant to say "irrationalism"

I see lots of thoughtful comments placing value on examining ideas from many viewpoints and keeping an open mind even if one has adopted a given viewpoint to argue from. Still, I would like to see more answers. Ken Wilber definitely has a coherent way of classifying multiple viewpoints in an evolutionary anthropological way. He also I think combines the public-objective/private-subjective viewpoints and sees them as coexisting together, but l am focused on the specifics of how one goes about the arguing part and still get to the understanding part about views you disagree with.

Answer 1

This is a difficult thing for many people. It is all about being able to think critically--to analyze an argument without passing judgment on other positions until you have truly understood them. This ability to "suspend judgment" is not easy--but it is worth the effort because it helps you to see the world more clearly.

The "trick" is to ask yourself--and force yourself to answer it honestly--"Why do people think that way?" If you can see the reasons that they adopt that perspective, then you can truly begin to understand that point of view. This doesn't mean you have to agree with them--it simply means that you can understand the reasons that lead them to that view.

Answer 2

The very nature of human evolution is the capacity to hold greater and greater perspectives(viewpoints). we have evolved from ego-centric to ethno-centric to world-centric over the last 100000 years. In very general terms ego-centric people hold the viewpoint that only they themselves matter and no one else. Ethno-centric people hold the viewpoint that they and their tribe, village, team, religion, country etc. are the only ones to care about and world-centric people care for all people on the planet. These are 3 very broad levels, but in reality there are subtle levels within levels that make the distinctions more fluid and seamless. Most disagreements about issues are less about someone being right and another being wrong, but more about 2 different viewpoints occuring because the 2 parties are at different levels of human development. As an example lets use evolutionary biology and creationism. Creationism is a literal belief that Life exists as it does because of God and that the Bible is the only authority to prove this. This is a conservative viewpoint that stems from a christian belief system that is unable to take into account other viewpoints because it is ethno-centric in nature. Evolutionary biology is a world-centric viewpoint because science is world-centric and cross-cultural. 2+2=4 everywhere on the planet but christianity isn't believed everywhere in the world. So it's really a clash of developmental levels. Once we understand this we realise that creationism is 100% right for people at that ethno-centric level of development and they have a human right to believe that. And the same is true for the evolutionary biologists. The interesting thing about human development, in my opinion, is that as new levels emerge over time the old ones are never lost but merge with the next new paradigm. Ethno-centricity was the pinnacle of human evolution before the age of enlightenment (reason,logic.rationalism). Soon we will live in a world where new paradigms are being created every day, giving humans the ability to hold numerous viewpoints all at once allowing them to make better decisions that effect themselves and others.

Answer 3

Depends on many factors.
Intellect to know what is going on... And the issues at the Heart of a problem "the intelligent design vs. evolution" is just another re-take on creationism v evolution... atleast thats what people who havent forgotten creationism claim... but this is more of a philosophical debate than practical....

to answer your question... you need to be a dualist, nihilist, or everythingist... lol
love everything... or dont care about anything ... or the nifty... both
You need to have one of these points of view in order to have the objectivity to consider the issues.

But to understand is a different matter... understanding would probably have to include respect for each side of an issue

Understanding takes a bit more than age, experience, and even the infamous naivity...

it takes a grasp of reality...

few can offer that trait to the world... not even me

goodluck,
~M

Answer 4

Although you might not agree with someone's point of view, you have to appreciate the fact that they have the right to have it. To achieve any level of proper debate or discussion, you have to have a certain knowledge of both sides of the arguement. You might not agree with it, but it is your responsibility to be able to have informed debate.

Answer 5

I can, but I've been told its a fairly rare trait.
My husband and his family used to debate all sides of an argument, just for fun. So it apparently can be learned as well.

Answer 6

The people who are able to see both sides of the coin are the ones who are emotionally detached ; they are observers. There's a really good free, online test to see if it is one of your personality traits : http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
The test is based on Jung's studies of personality types. Good Luck !

Answer 7

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....... All that are involved in it.