Yes, but they aren't compulsory or even popular. I was always uneasy with
them because they tended to turn serious topics into a sporting contest:
rewarded sophistry rather than good analytical skills. They have become
used as a source of TV comedy here. ("A good laugh is better than sex" type
of thing).
I'm not sure that we ever successfully separate the individual from the
idea presented, nor that I want to argue for something in which I do not
'believe.' My ideas own me, I'm afraid.
AndrewF
>Andrew,
>Do or did Australia have debating teams in school? We used to have them in
>High School. That seems to have disappeared in the US. One of the
>desirable outcomes that resulted in past generations of college graduates
>was the ability to attack an idea and not the individual presenting it. I
>see less of that happening in educational circles today.
>
>Gregg
>> > Basically it just boils down to piss poor education. People simply aren't
>> >receiving the requisite training (education) to develop the sort of mental
>> >discipline needed to do better intellectually in a world as complex and
>> >demanding as the one we live in. It should be intuitive that when our
>> >intellectual processes break down one of the first positions of fallback
>> >is going to be our emotions, and at that juncture you're playing with fire.
>> > Tris
>>
>>If only. Education is not some magic bullet. Most people receive an
>>education designed to pass on a belief and value structure. Most people
>>want vocational training, rather than education - it's more 'userful.' Most
>>receipients simply don't have the mental furniture to deal with complex
>>arguments in an objective manner and so genuine criticism sideslips into
>>mere cynicism and scepticism. Most philosophers live dangerously - like my
>>former lunchtime companion Peter Singer at Princeton.
>>AndrewF
>>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|