You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

How to Recognize and Deal with a Philosophical Bigot?

intrapersona October 08, 2016 at 05:49 12425 views 30 comments
For definition, A bigot is a prejudiced or more aptly a closed-minded person who is convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and against those who hold different opinions.

It seems that egotism is directly disadvantageous to philosophical conversation, yet it unconsciously works its way in without most of us being aware of it.

Are there not strategies used by humble people to avoid this kind of thing?

Comments (30)

Wosret October 08, 2016 at 06:11 #25102
I have to say, that I'm definitely the humblest one here, without a doubt, no contest. Personally I just notice the massive blindspot I try to create for myself in order to ignore every sin while I readily condemn it in others. I see the aburdity and irony of my special pleading, and knots I tie myself in with rationalizations and justifications.
intrapersona October 08, 2016 at 06:56 #25106
Reply to Wosret Lol... NO! I am the humblest one here!
Baden October 08, 2016 at 07:54 #25113
To the extent we believe in our opinions, we can't but will them, and humility of any positive value is a strategy in this regard along with everything else. So, the humble person deals with the philosophical bigot by graciously offering him their spade to dig his hole, but steadfastly refusing to join him there.
Wosret October 08, 2016 at 07:59 #25115
Yeah, the humble would be passive aggressive. We're all bigots.
intrapersona October 08, 2016 at 08:14 #25118
Nice...
Barry Etheridge October 08, 2016 at 13:22 #25149
Reply to intrapersona

I don't think your definition is really adequate. Surely it must take account of the fact that the conviction in the superiority of the bigot's views is maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. In other words there is a degree of irrationality required to being a bigot rather than simply a well-informed individual. If one's views are in fact superior then it is entirely right to be so convinced. It isn't egotistical to be correct. It can't be wrong to be right, only to believe you are when you are not.
wuliheron October 08, 2016 at 16:28 #25164
The moment I become perfectly humble I insist the whole world know.

Classical logic obeys the principle of the excluded middle, meaning every version of formal philosophy is biased explaining why it historically has been used to promote intolerance and bigotry. Where you decide to draw the lines and call someone a bigot rather than merely intolerant is one of those popular issues they argue over.
jkop October 08, 2016 at 18:08 #25172
People don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong, but some people hate it so much that they simply refuse to accept it, regardless of the proof. It might then seem liberating for them to assume that everyone has just their own opinion, that no-one is more right than any other, and that those who believe that some beliefs are right would be bigots. But who is the bigot? Hardly the one who accepts the risk of being proved wrong.
Pneumenon October 08, 2016 at 18:44 #25174
Quoting Baden
the humble person deals with the philosophical bigot by graciously offering him their spade to dig his hole, but steadfastly refusing to join him there.


Perfect.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 02:44 #25226
Quoting Barry Etheridge
I don't think your definition is really adequate. Surely it must take account of the fact that the conviction in the superiority of the bigot's views is maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. In other words there is a degree of irrationality required to being a bigot rather than simply a well-informed individual. If one's views are in fact superior then it is entirely right to be so convinced. It isn't egotistical to be correct. It can't be wrong to be right, only to believe you are when you are not.


It wasn't my definition, it was the dictionaries.

I see what your saying but you are missing something. It is not just simply a well-informed individual as it is a well-informed individual who is SO well-informed that he doesn't care to open his mind up to other possible interpretations (with or without evidence).

So it is not just about the bigot's views being maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. I agree that that is a considerable part of it but it is also a smugness that he feels when he is right and doesn't even bother to look for alternative viewpoints.

That is why the definition in the OP includes "close-mindedness"
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 02:47 #25228
Quoting wuliheron
The moment I become perfectly humble I insist the whole world know.


Got anymore oxymoronic statements like that? lol
_db October 09, 2016 at 02:48 #25229
Quoting intrapersona
Are there not strategies used by humble people to avoid this kind of thing?


One strategy would be to not participate in discussion with them in the first place.

Though we have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with exigency.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 02:53 #25230
Quoting darthbarracuda
One strategy would be to not participate in discussion with them in the first place.

Though we have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with exigency


From what we have already discussed, it seems everyone is a bigot because people don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong.

So you would in fact be promoting the death of philosophy. Noooo, no, nope, no no no, I am sorry, that simply won't do darthbarracuda... we need something better... YOUR WRONG!
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 02:58 #25232
Quoting jkop
People don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong, but some people hate it so much that they simply refuse to accept it, regardless of the proof.


Yes, because of Cognitive Disonance and The Ego.

Have you noticed stuffy people always want to be right? They are usually the most egotistical kind.

I think what might be best is to absolutely agree with them on everything but yet somehow disprove them while still agreeing with them. Sounds paradoxical? Not so, one can agree that he is both right and wrong at the same time.

Then again, perhaps that wouldn't work.

Perhaps we should show aggression and scold them, nay that won't work either.

intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 02:58 #25233
Quoting Baden
So, the humble person deals with the philosophical bigot by graciously offering him their spade to dig his hole, but steadfastly refusing to join him there


That definitely solves how to deal with them but how is it performed?
_db October 09, 2016 at 03:03 #25234
Reply to intrapersona Accepting that I might be wrong doesn't preclude me from having an opinion to begin with, or to have a sense of exigency based on that opinion. The fact that I'm willing to discuss something means that I'm open to be proven wrong.

That's the difference between an open-minded and a close-minded person: whether or not they are willing to have their beliefs changed.

However, there are some things that have exigency and thus can't be legitimately postponed forever for the sake of discussion.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 03:18 #25235
Reply to darthbarracuda Perhaps you can't see sarcasm because of the text but I was using capitalization to be ironic. Or maybe you are just so stale and serious that you never bother to reply to humour and turn everything in to a lifeless mush. Either way, your still wrong.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 03:20 #25236
Quoting darthbarracuda
The fact that I'm willing to discuss something means that I'm open to be proven wrong.


That is not the same with a Bigot. The Bigot pretends that he is willing to discuss something because he pretends he's open to be proven wrong but really his motive is to prove him self above others. To inflate his ego with the feeling of being right and another wrong.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 03:21 #25237
Quoting darthbarracuda
That's the difference between an open-minded and a close-minded person: whether or not they are willing to have their beliefs changed.


That's true I agree. I try my best to do that but it is hard sometimes to know whether it is reason I am listening to or whether it is my own ego I am listening to.

When I try and reform my beliefs from what others have advised it is hard to find the distinction between reason and ego because they are both speaking out of one voice inside your head.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 03:22 #25238
Quoting darthbarracuda
However, there are some things that have exigency and thus can't be legitimately postponed forever for the sake of discussion.


such as?
_db October 09, 2016 at 04:04 #25243
Quoting intrapersona
That is not the same with a Bigot. The Bigot pretends that he is willing to discuss something because he pretends he's open to be proven wrong but really his motive is to prove him self above others. To inflate his ego with the feeling of being right and another wrong.


Sounds like most bloggers.

Quoting intrapersona
such as?


Do we have an ethical priority to help those in need?
BC October 09, 2016 at 04:18 #25245
Quoting Barry Etheridge
I don't think your definition is really adequate. If one's views are in fact superior then it is entirely right to be so convinced. It isn't egotistical to be correct. It can't be wrong to be right, only to believe you are when you are not.


Quoting intrapersona
It wasn't my definition, it was the dictionaries.


If that's what the dictionary says, then the dictionary is an ass.***

***
"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically, "the law is an ass — an idiot.”

? Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 09:29 #25280
Quoting Bitter Crank
If that's what the dictionary says, then the dictionary is an ass.***


Cambridge: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life

Merriam: person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Wiki: The English noun bigot is a term of abuse aimed at a prejudiced or closed-minded person

Me: A bigot is a prejudiced or more aptly a closed-minded person who is convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and against those who hold different opinions.

Sound pretty similar to me.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 09:29 #25281
Quoting darthbarracuda
Do we have an ethical priority to help those in need?


Ask Ayn Rand... acording to her, selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice
_db October 09, 2016 at 16:46 #25342
Reply to intrapersona Ayn Rand isn't exactly a great example of philosophy in action.
wuliheron October 09, 2016 at 16:49 #25343
Reply to intrapersona I'm writing a book on the subject and this website doesn't have enough bandwidth.
Terrapin Station October 10, 2016 at 17:33 #25601
Quoting intrapersona
It seems that egotism is directly disadvantageous to philosophical conversation,
One would guess so, but I think that both professional and serious amateur philosophers tend to be "bigots" (in the way you're defining that) and egoists.

Conversational grace, especially over any sort of sustained interaction, is most often directly proportionate to just how similar the other person's views are to one's own.

Philosophy attracts egoists, because the game--well, and especially achieving any notoriety in the game--more or less amounts to telling everyone else that they were missing some important considerations in their thinking about things, if it doesn't amount to telling everyone else that they were basically thinking about things incorrectly.

Less egotistical people attracted to philosophy focus on being a scholar, but that's the minority.
intrapersona October 14, 2016 at 12:23 #26361
User image
WhiskeyWhiskers October 14, 2016 at 12:36 #26367
Reply to intrapersona

Utilitarian. Self-interest. Chivalry. Equality. What would you prefer society to model itself under?
Punshhh October 14, 2016 at 13:06 #26374
A lack of egoism or of being a bigot does not equal humility, humility is about something else. A good philosopher is one who simply considers all ideas and approaches as approaches to be developed, revised, questioned and seeks healthy balanced debate.

Humility is (apart from the humility which is a result of conditioning, mental trauma, or disease) an outlook, approach, technique in self development, or spirituality. A tool which some people may recommend egotists to practice to escape their plight. But which is also utilised in mysticism in exploring, or developing the self.