Why Bother Listening to Opinions You Disagree With?

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=969

Jacob Needleman, author and professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University, argues that the act of listening is a critical step in the development of a personal morality.

-----

Jacob Needleman discusses "Why Can't We Be Good?"

After nearly forty years of weighing humanity's deepest dilemmas - working in settings ranging from university and high school classrooms to corporate offices and hospitals - bestselling author, philosopher, and religious scholar Jacob Needleman presents the most urgent, deeply felt, and widely accessible work of his career.

In "Why Can't We Be Good?" Needleman identifies the core problem that therapists and social philosophers fail to see. He depicts the individual human as a being who knows what is good, yet who remains mysteriously helpless to innerly adopt the ethical, moral, and religious ideas that are bequeathed to him. - Cody's Books

Jacob Needleman is a professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University and the author of many books, including The American Soul, The Wisdom of Love, Time and the Soul, The Heart of Philosophy, Lost Christianity, and Money and the Meaning of Life.

In addition to his teaching and writing, he serves as a consultant in the fields of psychology, education, medical ethics, philanthropy, and business, and has been featured on Bill Moyers's acclaimed PBS series A World of Ideas.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• morals
• ethics
• ethical
• debates
• arguments
• politics
• youtube
• comments
• policy
• commenting
• ratings
• system
• haters
• angry
• foratv
• fora.tv
• fora
• tv

[cooler393]

Beautiful.

But, let's not forget the purpose of debate. This sort of passivity can diminish the spirit of debate, which is to arrive at truth, or at least, a higher truth than was present before the debate began. The whole purpose of argumentation can be lost when both sides are just aiming to leave "arm in arm."

Debate passionately. The trick is finding the balance between pure passion, and pure debate.

[BingoTheClowno666]

wow - that video really made me think. If you enter an argument to win, there is no way you can really understand what the other side is saying.

[bettysman]

@BoStevoD

OOPS! I meant to say below, "(continuing from below)"

[bettysman]

@BoStevoD

(continuing from above) - America with such a new way of human interaction would have been unsuccessful.

[bettysman]

@BoStevoD

Don't you think that if Needleman's description of this actually ancient idea of how to reduce suffering in the world had been PRACTICED long before the Revolutionary War, that there would have been no need for it? That is the key, for me. It has to become a "way of life", and not just a tool to pick up when we have made a hopeless mess out of things by practicing bad habits otherwise. Of course you are correct that jumping into a hopelessly desperate situation like colonial -

[bettysman]

@cooler393

ONCE ARM IN ARM, two people are deeply concerned about each others purposes and only then can a true resolution in truth be attained. Otherwise we get what we see for example in Israel/Palestine - hopeless, bloody, interminable conflict. THAT is what you get without a "meeting of minds". That is what you get with "debate", the etymology of which has more to do with quarreling and fighting than solving a problem.

[debranov]

@BoStevoD fighting for what's right is usually on the minds of confliciting sides

[ADAMOLOGY]

that's one of my professors LOL San Francisco State!!!

[Da0YiN]

@BoStevoD

it was settled over tea and scones!!! 

[givebirthathome]

Its interesting that so many of the comments reflect people arguing with what Needleman didn't say.

[givebirthathome]

@BoStevoD But first be sure you know what your opponents point of view is, and why they believe it, because you have striven to understand. That will avoid needless conflict, and help you win necessary conflict.

[studentofsmith]

2:00 This would be a good way to avoid the straw man fallacy.