Discuss: "It is nobler to declare oneself wrong than to insist on being right - especially when one is right."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
My two cents on the issue:
Who cares about nobility? Nobility is far less important than truth. Of course, I'm wrong on that point, so I'd like to hear what others have to say.
ID:185929
 Sep 25 2005, 12:58 pm
|
|
|
Sep 25 2005, 1:02 pm
|
|
DeathAwaitsU
 |
It really all depends on who you're talking to.
|
It is 1337 to declare oneself right than insist on being wrong on the internets - especially when one is wrong.
| |
PirateHead wrote:
Discuss: "It is nobler to declare oneself wrong than to insist on being right - especially when one is right." Who cares about nobility? Nobility is far less important than truth. Not necessarily so. If I was having a debate with someone and they said something that was absolutely true, but I thought my point was correct, and they refused to back down, I wouldn't think as highly of that person, even if it turned out that they were correct. I'd think they were just being stubborn and stupid. However, if someone who knew they were correct said, "I don't know, maybe you're right," and I later found out I was actually wrong, my opinion of that person would most likely raise. | |
If someone who knew they were right gave in to me -when I was wrong- (and let's face it, others being right and me being wrong is a circumstance that oft is the case =( ), I'd go and tell them to be less impressionable and to stand up for themselves a bit more.
In my eyes, if you're right and you know it, go for it. I mean, look at MLK and people like that. I think someone being submissive even if they were right is a bad thing! People shouldn't just bow down to you if you're considered better than them (which is often what happens). | |
If you are sure you are correct and the other person is incorrect, you should say so. There is no reason to back down unless proven wrong. To back down when you are correct is only doing everyone a disservice; it is a bad thing to do.
You should never feel bad about backing down. Never. However, there is another point that should be considered, and that is manners. Just because you think yourself correct, that does not mean you should be arrogant. To be arrogant and derogative to others in insisting correctness is bad. That is the part most people don't seem to get, and that is what makes something that would be an otherwise enjoyable debate less worthwhile. | |
Who cares about nobility? Nobility is far less important than truth. Of course, I'm wrong on that point, so I'd like to hear what others have to say. I think that under most circumstances, nobility and truth are not at odds with one another. Nietzsche was a genuine genius, a splendid aphorist, and one of the most entertaining philosophers you can read -- but the fact that he was crazy for the last few years of his life is probably not completely irrelevant to his philosophy. I'm not a Nietzsche scholar by any means, but in my experience, whenever he makes a categorical statement it's a safe bet that he'll contradict it somewhere in the next 20 pages or so. Caveat lector! | |
My ex-girlfriend and I used to get in lots of arguments over stupid things, when often she was blatantly out to lunch. I'd often find it the best idea to just let her think she was right so that she'd be happy.
Then, when we broke up she told me she wanted me to punch me in the face, and I was like "aight." Either the quote is a smart move or a bad move :| -tezz | |
"noble
adj 1: having high moral qualities; "a noble spirit"; "a solid citizen"; "an upstanding man"; "a worthy successor" [syn: solid, upstanding, worthy]" Therefore to succumb to falsity or inaccuracy isn't a question of nobility at all, it is a matter or morals. Do you have the morals of truth and Justice or Indifference and ambiguity. If some if blatantly spreading lies or denying obvious truth, you have the option to correct them, which may be precieved as rudeness which is where the question stems. What is really asking is: Is is bad descioning to correct someone, when popularity is a factor? Given ones dispoition on poularity (the bastard child of vanity) dictates their answer. Those inclined to be popular, or those inclined to want to be popular will say it is un-noble, while those who are nuetral or are not effected by it will say it is noble. Meanwhile those neutral are flipping their Kennedys chanting heads or tails. | |
Sometimes I think that people need to understand that there is always a right and a wrong, indeed if it is only a matter of personnal preference. Nobility in my opinion comes from the ability of a person to understand when to insist on being right or to concede to being wrong, even if they are not.
For instance, not setting someone straight in a matter close to their heart would be a noble undertaking. In that instance you are bypassing your pride for the good of another and hence being noble without truth. So essentially, nobility is a conciquence of truth, and truth depends on circumstance. I don't know if that makes sense, or even if it is realy relevent. I just felt like saying it. - GunRunner | |
I agree with Nietzsche. It's better to admit a small element of uncertainty than assume infallibility. Otherwise you aren't being noble at all. Well, at least, not noble in the modern sense -- I'm sure medieval nobles were quite "infallible". ;-)
| |