John Stuart Mill wrote:
the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.
I had a similar opinion already, but
On Liberty makes a better job at expressing it. I go to PPR whenever there is something I've read and thought a lot about, and have more or less clear, but I have not debated it with other people yet, and until I do and I see everything that can be said against it and the arguments behind it, and can successfully address all those counterarguments, I can't be reasonably sure about it. Most of the time I end up making revisions to what I originally thought, and there has been at least one occasion where someone managed to prove me mostly wrong, but in the end if it helps me get closer to the truth, then it is worth it. When I try to convince others of my views or at least understand them is not really because I want to convince them, but because it means my argumentation is solid and what I am saying is close to the truth. There are some people whose worldviews are too different to mine in a very basic way, and in those cases I can do little more than acknowledge it and move on because their arguments based in those worldviews won't be valid to me, or mine to them, but generally I hear good things often enough debating is worth it.
Is it only me, or people don't take PPR as seriously as I thought they did?
_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill