On the Path to Philosphership: Being Proven Wrong

The Path of Philosophership Articles

https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-solitude

https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-buddies-and-temptations

https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-lambasting-criticizing-harshly

https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-recognition

https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophership-as-duty-definition-and-poem

https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-the-importance-of-inclusion)

The Article

(Background music)

The Importance of Being Wrong

Being proven wrong is one of the most important things a philosopher can experience, regardless of their perceived brilliance. When we readily accept being wrong, we take a crucial step away from delusion, the antithesis of truth.

This willingness to be wrong is imperative. It doesn't matter how highly you regard yourself or your philosophical ideas; you must always be open to the possibility of error.

Here's the catch: our egos often get tangled up in our beliefs. Take, for instance, the misconception of self-diagnosing autism. Imagine, for the sake of argument, receiving a different diagnosis later on. This could lead to anger and frustration. Why? Because our identities, to some degree, are built on our understanding of ourselves. Being proven wrong about something so seemingly fundamental can be a blow to the ego.

This is precisely why philosophers must cultivate the ability to detach their egos from their ideas. True intellectual growth flourishes in the fertile ground of open-mindedness and a willingness to revise our perspectives in the face of new evidence.

Beliefs are merely components within the larger-scale research that's philosophy. They are assessments, rather than facts. And a good philosopher is a seeker of truth, rather than a promoter of assessments. Assessments are discovered to be the truth, once they are tested.

Testing Our Truths

The pursuit of truth requires a sobering acceptance: the truth might lie far beyond our current understanding. Just consider my situation. For a decade, I identified as autistic based on a diagnosis. However, the philosopher in me compels me to acknowledge the possibility of error, if for instance the diagnosis itself happens to be wrong. That might happen from time to time.

So, here's the question: Wouldn't a true seeker of truth, welcome the chance to be proven wrong, especially when a diagnosis is affordable and accessible? Just like a scientist, I can benefit from applying my own theories to my life. Refusal to test hypotheses against lived experience risks deepening potential delusions. Of course, this applies to situations where there's enough money to afford a diagnosis more than once in a lifetime.

In my own online journey, some accused me of narcissism. My philosophical commitment to truth led me to consult my psychologist, who disproved the accusation. This highlights a crucial point: mere criticism, even if well-intended, might be inaccurate.

Therefore, criticism shouldn't be treated as an absolute truth, an unquestionable "Torah from Sinai." The possibility of being proven wrong doesn't automatically indicate error. Healthy doubt must be applied on both sides – yours and your critic's. Rigorous questioning can be the path towards a clearer understanding of the truth.

But it is quite difficult to do it, and unnecessarily so, when you and the critic/s lack the professionalism to stay calm.

The Philosopher's Thick Skin

A good philosopher strives for intellectual honesty, which necessitates openness to being disproven – even if it stings. This is why I readily allow comments on my website and share my email address publicly.

Over the years, I've faced harsh criticism. But I recognize that, as a self-proclaimed philosopher, a certain level of sensitivity must be sacrificed in the name of intellectual growth. And also in the name of delivering high-quality content for more people.

Philosophy can thrive on discourse, but only when it doesn't resort to petty conflicts, where people either unnecessarily insult or are insulted. The biggest roadblock to meaningful discourse is taking counterarguments personally, as if it has to do anything with you as a person.

Here's the key to avoiding it: separate yourself from your ideas. Seperate yourself from your emotions and approach criticism with logic, not emotion. Remember, just as someone challenges your ideas, it doesn't necessarily challenge you. Learn to take criticism professionally.

However, let me be clear: None of this justifies harassment, threatening or bullying. When one party loses interest in the conversation, it's time to step away and pursue truth elsewhere. Let's try to discuss with each other in a calm, peaceful manner, without being intimidated by one another. That's the only ideal way, in theory, for a peaceful discourse. And a peaceful discourse is a most fruitful one. One that is least to resort to unnecessary biases and fallacies.

Respectful Discourse in Pursuit of Truth

True philosophical inquiry requires a delicate balance. However, this openness has limitations:

Honesty Above All: Deception, the antithesis of truth-seeking, has no place in philosophical discourse. We shouldn't deceive ourselves or others about being wrong. We strive for rational discourse that leads to genuine understanding. When you mislead someone, for example you abuse their trust in you. In some cases it can be for you to not be proven wrong.

Disagreeing Doesn't Belittle: Disagreement doesn't make someone "not okay". If your arguments hold weight, and your opponent disagrees, that's their prerogative. See this as an opportunity for exploration as to why you might be wrong and they might be right. Understand their point of view before judging it. Otherwise you would enable a potential falsehood within your thinking.

Ultimately, philosophy flourishes when we engage in respectful dialogue, embrace the possibility of error, and prioritize the pursuit of truth over personal pride.