• intrapersona
    579
    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?
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    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
    579
    Lol... NO! I am the humblest one here!
  • Baden
    15.6k
    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
    3.4k
    Yeah, the humble would be passive aggressive. We're all bigots.
  • Barry Etheridge
    349


    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
    440
    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
    660
    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
    463
    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.Baden

    Perfect.
  • intrapersona
    579
    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.Barry Etheridge

    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
    579
    The moment I become perfectly humble I insist the whole world know.wuliheron

    Got anymore oxymoronic statements like that? lol
  • _db
    3.6k
    Are there not strategies used by humble people to avoid this kind of thing?intrapersona

    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
    579
    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
    darthbarracuda

    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
    579
    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.jkop

    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
    579
    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 thereBaden

    That definitely solves how to deal with them but how is it performed?
  • _db
    3.6k
    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
    579
    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
    579
    The fact that I'm willing to discuss something means that I'm open to be proven wrong.darthbarracuda

    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
    579
    That's the difference between an open-minded and a close-minded person: whether or not they are willing to have their beliefs changed.darthbarracuda

    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
    579
    However, there are some things that have exigency and thus can't be legitimately postponed forever for the sake of discussion.darthbarracuda

    such as?
  • _db
    3.6k
    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

    Sounds like most bloggers.

    such as?intrapersona

    Do we have an ethical priority to help those in need?
  • BC
    13.1k
    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.Barry Etheridge

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

    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
    579
    If that's what the dictionary says, then the dictionary is an ass.***Bitter Crank

    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
    579
    Do we have an ethical priority to help those in need?darthbarracuda

    Ask Ayn Rand... acording to her, selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice
  • _db
    3.6k
    Ayn Rand isn't exactly a great example of philosophy in action.
  • wuliheron
    440
    I'm writing a book on the subject and this website doesn't have enough bandwidth.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    It seems that egotism is directly disadvantageous to philosophical conversation,intrapersona
    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 <insert philosopher of your choice here> scholar, but that's the minority.
  • WhiskeyWhiskers
    155


    Utilitarian. Self-interest. Chivalry. Equality. What would you prefer society to model itself under?
  • Punshhh
    2.6k
    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.