Probably a silly question.

[Harbal]

In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?

Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

[Skepdick]

In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?

Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

Well. Maybe.

Some people may engage in philosophicla debate in order to indoctrinate.
Some people may engage in philosophicla debate in order here to learn.

Some people may engage in philosophicla debate via motivated reasoning so truth doesn't matter; or at least it's immaterial to their goals.
Some people may engage in philosophicla debate via critical thought so truth does matter to them.

What and who determines which motives/strategy/style of reasoning is "wrong"?

[Age]

In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?

Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

For me anyway, to learn.

[Skepdick]

For me anyway, to learn.

That's so unfortunate.

I haven't observed an ounce of learning/progress from you in years.

[Age]

For me anyway, to learn.

That's so unfortunate.

I haven't observed an ounce of learning/progress from you in years.

Could what you have 'observed' be wrong or incorrect in ANY way whatsoever?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?

Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

For me anyway, to learn.

I've never seen you agree with anyone about anything. EVER. You seem to be compelled to argue about everything. It's exhausting. Just saying...

[Age]

In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?

Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

For me anyway, to learn.

I've never seen you agree with anyone about anything. EVER. You seem to be compelled to argue about everything. It's exhausting. Just saying...

I AGREE.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

For me anyway, to learn.

I've never seen you agree with anyone about anything. EVER. You seem to be compelled to argue about everything. It's exhausting. Just saying...

I AGREE.

So in other words you are a bog-standard know-it-all. No wonder no one wants to discuss anything with you. It's just hard work, especially with your ridiculous habit of random capitalisation.

[Harbal]

It's just hard work, especially with your ridiculous habit of random capitalisation.

Now I have to agree with that. I find it distracting, and an obstacle to good communication. It's also quite irritating.

[Age]

I've never seen you agree with anyone about anything. EVER. You seem to be compelled to argue about everything. It's exhausting. Just saying...

I AGREE.

So in other words you are a bog-standard know-it-all.

Did you ever stop to consider that you have NOT SEEN EVERY thing I have written here?

And, that I just do NOT write, 'I agree', to absolutely EVERY thing that 'I agree with'?

I agreed with what you wrote here above 100%, but I would usually NOT have informed you that I agreed with it, like ALL the OTHER times I have agreed with you, except I did this time.

Oh, and by the way, I do NOT recall seeing you agreeing with ANY one about ANY thing, EVER, ALSO. But that IN NO WAY means that you have NOT.

And, NO, just because I USED the 'I AGREE' words here that does NOT mean that I am, what you ACCUSED me of being here.

As I continually say, If absolutely ANY thing I write is FALSE, WRONG, or INCORRECT, then just POINT 'it' OUT, for us to LOOK AT 'it', and then EXPLAIN WHY you see that 'it' is FALSE, WRONG, or INCORRECT.

No wonder no one wants to discuss anything with you.

EXCEPT 'you' are DISCUSSING 'this' here with me now.

It's just hard work, especially with your ridiculous habit of random capitalisation.

WHY do some of you here, in this forum, find some capitalized words so-called VERY HARD WORK?

[Age]

It's just hard work, especially with your ridiculous habit of random capitalisation.

Now I have to agree with that. I find it distracting, and an obstacle to good communication. It's also quite irritating.

It was also done for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

[Harbal]

It was also done for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

So the capitals are the lesser of two evils, is that what you're saying?

[Age]

It was also done for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

So the capitals are the lesser of two evils, is that what you're saying?

NO.

And what do you mean by "the lesser of two-evils"?

[henry quirk]

are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

Third option: decimation.

If you cannot teach them, and they cannot teach you: War!
or indifference

[Harbal]

And what do you mean by "the lesser of two-evils"?

I mean, is your reason for inappropriate capitalisation such that not to capitalise would make what you write even worse than the capitals do?