Questions and Answers

A debate is usually between opposing arguments, it might be called a dialectic, because if one is true the other is false. But most debates don't have that level of black and whiteness, there can be a lot of middle ground, where they are both true. This would be called a synthesis of both arguments. A true debate, it seems to me, starts with the same premises, but finds opposing conclusions. Much of philosophy starts with the same questions and finds very different conclusions. Questions such as 'what can we know?' and 'what is the purpose of our being?'. A good philosopher will know many ways of answering these questions and would hopefully be able to develop that line of questioning. Also a competent philosopher will know the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the debate.

What I wish to put forward here is a distinction between open and closed arguments. When one side closes the other opens, when asked 'does God exist?', you may confirm he does, but that opens up the question of 'how do you know?'. I call this the dialectical deduction, one can start with the argument of idealism and materialism and slowly create a synthesis of both as being part of consciousness. Having an 'open mind' is something that is often encouraged and I see the development of knowledge as growing a more and more open mind. Compared to the ancient Greeks we have loads more theories in all sorts of areas and thus we have a more open mind. Openness and closedness is a vast spectrum, completing a theory and placing a paradigm around it, still allows fresh debate and equally questioning everything still produces that first principle of belief.

Some people say, 'you can't change the past, you can only change the future'. Sure there is greater openness to choosing a path to follow, but also much can be reinterpreted about our memories. The great part of this theory is that all immoral actions can become closed to us and open up the many paths of the 'good'. Freedom is not just visions of our possible future, but also the removal of what harms us. My own experience is that I wanted to find life away from mental illness and to some extent I have. I closed that part of my life and now I feel so free, because I avoid fueling the illness it has been destroyed, hopefully, by knowing how to live without it. It showed to me the strength of the human will to closing off destructive natures, destruction, I believe, will eventually destroy itself and leave us free to revel in the openness of the creative arts. The future is always open to new developments and by understanding how our minds open and close will push forward our intuition.