Wow this thread has gone off topic! Oh well;
In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor
contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is
possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and
only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble,
as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions
which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of
this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be
remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying
may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is
likely to have arrived at the complete and final truth on any subject
whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us
obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow
true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true.
This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once
enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how
foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which
has a different temper of mind.
Wise words indeed. Reminds me of the difference between skepticism
and pseudoskeptism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com