Kathryn J. Norlock, “Receptivity as Argumentative Virtue”<\/p>\n
Norman Schwarz in “Philosophy as Blood Sport” tells the story of professor X who attends a session at the APA, acts like a jerk at the session, and leaves announcing, “I do not care how you will reply”.\u00c2\u00a0 This is a failure of receptivity.<\/p>\n
Receptivity as a virtue of argument matters.\u00c2\u00a0 It is a precondition for caring.\u00c2\u00a0 Receptivity is a background for intelligent extension of charity rather than indiscriminiate charity.\u00c2\u00a0 We care for others’ reasons as others, individuals.\u00c2\u00a0 Relationships are central to moral life – are ethics provide an account of where our priorities should lie<\/p>\n
Some folks are not deserving of our receptivity.\u00c2\u00a0 But most are, and even in adversarial contexts (or in adversarial communities), it’s appropriate to still consider one’s adversary.\u00c2\u00a0 Context matters.<\/p>\n
We care about ideas, but we care for persons.\u00c2\u00a0 Sometimes what we care for takes on a varity.<\/p>\n
P.Rooney Comment: Care is triadic in argument exchange.\u00c2\u00a0 A-to-B, B-to-A, and both to the value of the epistemic outcome of the exchange.<\/p>\n
Q: How is receptivity different from open-mindedness?<\/p>\n
Q: How is receptivity different from recognition?<\/p>\n
Q: If S is receptive to view A, but A is inconsistent with B, is S not receptive to B?<\/p>\n
Q: Can’t receptivity & Charity yield iron men?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kathryn J. Norlock, “Receptivity as Argumentative Virtue” Norman Schwarz in “Philosophy as Blood Sport” tells the story of professor X who attends a session at the APA, acts like a jerk at the session, and leaves announcing, “I do not care how you will reply”.\u00c2\u00a0 This is a failure of receptivity. Receptivity as a virtue … Continue reading OSSA Day 1: Norlock and Receptivity<\/span>