Jump to content
The Corroboree

Recommended Posts

I mentioned this to some people recently and, to my surprise, it seemed to resonate with some of them in their search for truth.

 

The Principle of Charity is a methodological practice in philosophy. It is that when we seek to understand a point of view or argument, we seek to understand that view in it's best/strongest/most persuasive form. Sometimes this involves a bit of reconstruction or filling of logical gaps. Once you've made the most sensible/understandable version of a view that you can, then you can set about evaluating and, if necessary, criticising it (philosophy isn't all hugs & puppies). There's important technical reasons for this, but I like some of the non-technical ones I've read:

 

This attitude, if maintained, frees the conditioned mind and enables it to absorb and understand the new.

 

Interpret unto others as you would have them interpret unto you.

 

So I think there's both pragmatic (aides understanding) and moral (respect and reciprocity) reasons why this might be a good approach. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

totes agree.personally i've tried to maintain this approach for the last 10 years or thereabouts @Yeti101. it's a totes doable way to be existing.sure it's cost me in dollar terms but

freeing yourself from artificially placed constraints upon ones being is the way to go.man.i reckon.

the approach of always striving to be perfect ie with no imperfections , never works.

giving it away(not your soul or body lolz) but the freedom of expression to give away materialism is the way to go .No body worth a salt of sense will up sell their own self....this is for pollies - they've lost the sense of self already.

being free, treat others the same way as you would want them to treat you is kinda religious in it's overtones but the spiritual beings who hypothesized these musings in the first place had religion as the furthest thing from their minds.

hold loved ones dear to your heart and strive to give when you can is a pretty upright way to be.

there's nothing daggy about giving when you can. if ya can't....well.....look after yourself first mang.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reminds me of a quote i just read today

 

[Enlightened Beings] consder all sentient beings as their own self and do not cling to their individual forms. How is this? Because they know truthfully that all sentient beings as well as their own self come from one and the same suchness, and no distinction can be established among them - Ashvaghosa (Awakening of Faith)

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well in philosophy it is always nice to talk about it and stuff with people who support you and what not, especially if you are studying in hmm, a concentration camp or some sort of aslyum... but it kinda sucks when they bring each other down. Meh, philosphy, not my cuppa!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's different for everyone, for some people charity can be reduced to a tax deductible ego boost/publicity stunt.

 

To me charity is just giving without expecting any recognition, publicity or anything in return.

 

It's good will without egotistical attachment - humanity in its simplest form.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I agree with what all youse are saying about generosity, but I don't think that's what the OP was actually about (feel free to correct Yeti). So rather than material charity where you are giving people money/stuff/time/etc, this seemed to be about a specific philosophical principle where you maintain a charitable attitude toward new ideas, and just assume for the sake of argument that they make sense (even if your first reaction is to dismiss/disagree with them).

 

@Yeti101 Hmm, I'm not sure I'm understanding the Principle. Aside from helping to maintain optimism and general not-being-a-cunt-ishness, can you explain why this is a better approach (methodologically speaking) than my Principle of Cynicism (wherein I am sceptical about new views or arguments until they can prove themselves to be sensible & understandable)? This charity thing makes it sound like I would have to do a lot of the work in making other peoples arguments for them - shouldn't that be their job? The cynical approach might be more resistant to new ideas, but it is based on the core belief that some ideas are fucking stupid and shouldn't be adopted (and I am totally ok with someone pointing out that cynicism is one of those ideas, so long as their argument is sensible and understandable). If some argument needs to be improved & completed by the likes of me, then how weak was it to start with? And most important, how do you avoid putting words in their mouth when filling in those logical gaps? How do you avoid unconsciously "strengthening" the argument with straw-men if it's something that you disagree with?

 

I get what manu was saying about how it's nice to have supportive peers, but isn't the logical conclusion of that one big circle-jerk where philosophers stand around saying "well yes, that sounds like a rational argument my good fellow" to each other while stroking their chins? And I do understand the idea of trying to build up a strong argument before you start pulling it apart with criticisms, but why does it need to be done in that order? Can't you equally well build a strong argument from the ground up, by criticising each step along the way?

 

Bleh. Can you tell I've spent too much time having my faith in humanity being eroded by public transport experiences recently?

Edited by Anodyne
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You give their ideas the benefit of the doubt to start with.  It saves you the potential embarassment of reacting with derision prematurely, with the added bonus that you may learn something.  

 

I would say I am ten percent charitable in normal interactions, but much higher in other situations.  if you cant appropriate ideas (even from unlikely sources) your mental arsenal, however formidable, will stagnate.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThunderIdeal said:

You give their ideas the benefit of the doubt to start with.  It saves you the potential embarassment of reacting with derision prematurely, with the added bonus that you may learn something. 

I started practicing yoga a couple years ago for physical rehab & general fitness, and it had the unintended side-effect of helping me to control my temper as well. Before when I would get stressed I would just snap & start swearing at cars. Then someone explained to me that the idea behind the tougher, most frustrating forms of yoga (like ashtanga) is to put your body into stressful situations deliberately, while you are in a safe environment, so you can train yourself to respond to that stressful stimuli by taking a deep breath and correcting your posture. That was a great little moment for me, grokking that. So now, when I am in a stressful situation, my reflex is to take a deep breath, correct my posture, assess the situation neutrally... and then lose my shit and hit them with my walking cane. This kinda sounds like the philosophical equivalent of that. Ok.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ashtanga is much more challenging than forcing yourself to listen to somebody against your will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×