thank you for your answer.
I agree with what you have to say - but I don't see it to apply to the situation in discussion.
Each of us at our personal stage of development, and we are here not to teach anybody, but to learn and grow.
Development includes social interaction and social interaction includes opposition of thought, debate and discussion. Within these learning and growth take place. The way I position myself - not only intellectually but emotionally - in a debate determines growth in the same way I would do these things in any other situation - be it by myself or in a social environment. So how are you going to develop a solution to these practical situations if not by bringing your experiences, knowledge and logic into it?
Of course, my objective is not teaching anybody. But if I am confronted with an illogical statement I will point out that it is illogical - for the fostering of it can cause harm to the development of another. [Example: Hitler tells me he has to kill the Jews for they are responsible for the evil in the world. I will tell him: Dear Adolph, don't take things so seriously. Please re-evaluate your assumptions as I do not see a causal relationship between Jews residing in Germany and the defeat of Germany in WWI and the subsequent issuing of the Treaty of Versailles. - This is a) a logical response to Hitler and b) a moral act as it aims at lowering the confusion of an individual which may lead to genocide.]
Human growth is not the same, as a science research. Modern science is based on an objectivism.
I agree. But I was talking about a practical approach within a philosophical debate.
My subjective word is not exact match to anybody's else.
This is why we define terms in oder to reduce distortion in our communication.
One can help others to by providing a loving and supportive environment, and by accepting them for who they are.
Again, I agree. But how are you going to deal with the situation of debate in this way? Of course one could try to set a tone that conveys a loving and caring environment. But then in that environment you still have to position yourself according to statements others make. As long as you chose not to become a hermit. Accepting Hitler for who he is? Yes, he as a person is still loved - but his ideas should be refuted or at least addressed
- if presented.
What one sees as nonsense in the thoughts and ideas of others is only one's personal opinion, provided and supported by one's ego.
To some extent this holds true. But there are illogical statements and statements which do not fit into a particular system of thought. As in this case there was an incongruity between MBT and Rand. So objectively, logically speaking - trying to bring these two together is: nonsense. It doesn't make any sense. It is illogical. And pointing that out has nothing to do with ego - as far as my humble opinion is concerned.
"In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves."
To that also: I agree. The question remains: Who became angry? I was just sitting in front of my computer debating a philosophical question. As for others: I don't know what kind of emotions arouse within them. To me this is just a technical issue: Illogical statement -> pointing out illogical statement...
So the growth-part in this situation clearly lies without the actual subject of discussion and more within the reaction of oneself in regard to having to re-evaluate what one has to say...
If I were to apply what you have just explained to me to this forum - basically every single discussion not concerned with the fundamental principles of MBT - that takes place in exactly the way you portrayed - would not match it - and would therefore be irrelevant or even immoral.
Defeat is something you can attach to the discussion if you want to. </shrugs shoulders> attach it if you want to. I just wanted the ideas discussed. It was successful in spots, not so much in others.
This is not about me or anybody else being 'victorious' - but about a position that does not hold up to critical examination and should therefore be abandoned - to sum this up I used the term: intellectual defeat.