Re: Bertrand Russell on Anger Over Differing Opinions

Gary I am putting this quote in the psychic newsgroup, as most people in
there who argue don't seem to realise this very important point,
the important word for me in this is 'persecution',
this is exactly how people who have had unusual experiences are often
treated,
I am not sure about the belief piece , but then high emotion can make people
go a bit over the top,
Gea

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20041023234550.24246.00002846@mb-m02.aol.com...
> "The most savage controversies are those
> about matters as to which there is no good
> evidence either way. Persecution is used in
> theology, not in arithmetic, because in
> arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology
> there is only opinion. So whenever you find
> yourself getting angry about a difference of
> opinion, be on your guard; you will probably
> find, on examination, that your belief is going
> beyond what the evidence warrants." *
>
> Even though Russell applies this to theology this would seem to go doubly
for
> politics.
>
> On the other hand should Bertrand Russell get angry at those who get angry
on
> theological matters? Russell preaches tolerance but does that include
> tolerance toward the intolerant as the classic objection goes? Of course
> Russell doesn't suggest burning people at the stake for being intolerant
> whereas the intolerant might literally do so. He merely wishes to
persuade us
> through logic and ideas to be more tolerant and less dogmatic in our
beliefs.
>
> But what about in politics? What about in a democracy if those with the
> "wrong" views gain the upper hand? Should those with the "right" views
not get
> angry at what is done in their name as well? Are there not adequate
grounds
> for anger? Or can those with the "right" views in a democracy simply
stand
> back and say, "we didn't vote for so and so, therefore it's not our
fault." Is
> politics like theology, only opinion, and therefore we should guard
against
> becoming angry or are there some things of which we have knowledge in
politics
> and therefore which speak for themselves, such as practicing toleration in
an
> age when technology in warfare has given mankind the capacity for self
> destruction? Should or would a math teacher get angry with a student who
> stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Bertrand Russell, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish", in _Unpopular
Essays_
> (New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 116.
>
>
> Gary the Philologizer
>
> Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university
philosophy
> major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but
stable
> on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

	#1
Gea Jones	Re: Bertrand Russell on Anger Over Differing Opinions Gary I am putting this quote in the psychic newsgroup, as most people in there who argue don't seem to realise this very important point, the important word for me in this is 'persecution', this is exactly how people who have had unusual experiences are often treated, I am not sure about the belief piece , but then high emotion can make people go a bit over the top, Gea "Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message news:20041023234550.24246.00002846@mb-m02.aol.com... > "The most savage controversies are those > about matters as to which there is no good > evidence either way. Persecution is used in > theology, not in arithmetic, because in > arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology > there is only opinion. So whenever you find > yourself getting angry about a difference of > opinion, be on your guard; you will probably > find, on examination, that your belief is going > beyond what the evidence warrants." * > > Even though Russell applies this to theology this would seem to go doubly for > politics. > > On the other hand should Bertrand Russell get angry at those who get angry on > theological matters? Russell preaches tolerance but does that include > tolerance toward the intolerant as the classic objection goes? Of course > Russell doesn't suggest burning people at the stake for being intolerant > whereas the intolerant might literally do so. He merely wishes to persuade us > through logic and ideas to be more tolerant and less dogmatic in our beliefs. > > But what about in politics? What about in a democracy if those with the > "wrong" views gain the upper hand? Should those with the "right" views not get > angry at what is done in their name as well? Are there not adequate grounds > for anger? Or can those with the "right" views in a democracy simply stand > back and say, "we didn't vote for so and so, therefore it's not our fault." Is > politics like theology, only opinion, and therefore we should guard against > becoming angry or are there some things of which we have knowledge in politics > and therefore which speak for themselves, such as practicing toleration in an > age when technology in warfare has given mankind the capacity for self > destruction? Should or would a math teacher get angry with a student who > stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > * Bertrand Russell, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish", in _Unpopular Essays_ > (New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 116. > > > Gary the Philologizer > > Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy > major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable > on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.