I am prepared to be shown where I am mistaken and made aware of where I may perhaps be prejudice even without intending, or simply ignorant of facts. I enthusiastically invite correction if it is to advance an honest argument in good faith. But please do so only if your reasons are genuine and not motivated out of bad faith. Argue your point without resort to ad hominem and false accusation, because use of these weaponised tricks of discussion are the surest give away that we are indeed in bad faith and our arguments morally bankrupt.
Little of the commentary on Dinner Party Chatter should be taken as a firm stance or professed belief. Most of it, though not all, is reflection. Where the discourse might resemble a hard stance or belief, the reader should be cautious.
I also reserve the right to change my mind about a matter, and in fact invite others to try and change it for me if they are bothered. The willingness and especially the active search for challenges to our thinking keeps us from deluding ourselves. It’s how science proceeds, and with a little humour as well as on occasion a light-hearted excursion close to the edge, such scepticism and distrust, even of one’s own inclinations (I hesitate to call them beliefs) is a very good thing for us too. As I frequently try to remind myself, only the sane their sanity doubt. Which works the other way round also: only for doubters is sanity certain. Only doubters of their own beliefs can be sure they are thinking for themselves, and not because someone else taught them to think that way.
The only rule advisable when questioning one’s own beliefs and absolutely anything believed by others, is to keep it civil and if possible, entertaining.
Where it is usual and often expected to profess a firm belief and to defend it as such (Brexit is right/wrong; God does/doesn’t exist; AI is good/bad, and so on) the smartest position might be to look at things dispassionately, though not necessarily with indifference; or perhaps acknowledge an inclination towards one position or another and see what comes of it as you find out more. What Brexit made painfully clear and religious belief has always suffered from, is that most of the time we do not have enough data to make a judgment one way or the other, not one that is worthy of the title Belief, to be defended until the break up of the United Kingdom or the Second Coming. Though perhaps such matters do make for good discussion down at the pub (sadly, currently a thing of the past during this coronavirus pandemic).
Such issues as Brexit and existence of God usually get decided on what we prefer and what we think we want or need, whether it be lower immigration or eternal life, and not on what we know. There may also be an element of fear. In these and many other examples, factual data is what we need to make a firm decision and formulate a belief. When we have such data, along with guiding principles of right and wrong, we can afford the convenience of neatly filing away a matter under the heading Beliefs, possibly.
For myself, most times I know what I like and don’t like, and I’m aware of certain actions that work to produce wellbeing and others that prevent it, and on that bases I feel, sometimes at least, able to make decisions. But such practical decision making is not based on belief in the rightness or wrongness of something, it’s just prudence. It is probably how most people navigate daily life, driven, as I say, by likes and dislikes on the one hand, and on the other by conduct whose consequences we perceive as bringing about wellbeing, or not, with both hands at times being in conflict.
We like wine, but have learned that an extra glass could be harmful. So in this sense we could be said to hold a belief that wine in excess is bad for overall wellbeing, and such a belief seems justified because there is evidence, gathered first hand and usually the next day, that too much wine is harmful. But as to whether or not wine is actually good for us, this is a trickier belief to defend, however much we like the idea. We need vast and numerous scientific studies free of funding from the alcohol industry and bias from the media, carried out by sober scientists, to confirm what could only ever be suspected and much hoped for all these thousands of years of imbibing and boozing. (There is now, if it is to be believed, alleged evidence that shows red wine is good for you. Which is good news, though the bad news is that it’s only in moderation.)
Other matters are even trickier. Whether Brexit is a good thing or that God exists involve reviewing a huge body of historical and scholarly data on the EU in the case of Brexit, and having absolutely no evidence whatsoever to work with in the case of God’s alleged existence. Thus few can claim to be in a position to make a firm judgement and hold a belief on the former, and only charlatans claim to know anything about the latter.
Similarly with the phenomenon of billionaires. I can only say that I know I don’t like the idea of billionaires or trust them on the basis of what they say and do. Even so, as with God and Brexit, I am unsure whether, all told, they might possibly hold an overall benefit for humanity, what with their innovating and captaining.
The question of billionaires is a useful example of the healthy practice of doubting and testing your inclinations, by the way. I am inclined, possibly because I am frequently on the rails, against billionaires arising among us. There is as I say an unhealthy dollop of envy in this inclination naturally, but it is balanced with a sound smidgen of curiosity as to whether they provide an overall good for society. If they do, then we must preserve them, whilst trying to minimise the harm that they will inevitably also produce as autocratic power houses in the fertile ground of democratic societies. (Auto and demo are contradictory terms not for nothing. Those Greeks knew what they were talking about.)
If billionaires do turn out to provide an overall benefit for a democratic society, they could reasonably and I argue happily be put to work in its service. Once proven to be the indispensable innovators and dynamos they claim they are (currently used to partly justify their control, as a tiny group, of more than half the world’s resources), economies based on true equity and sustainability can cultivate billionaires without compromising on principle. A billionaire would be the equivalent of a well loved jackass – and some of them are quite adorable – put to work for the benefit of all, but really, really well cared for. They will be given a luxury mansion in which they would all be stabled comfortably together, with a yacht, private jet and plenty of carrots, all to give that necessary incentive to produce golden eggs for society, and not the illusion of it. Lavish praise and adoration would be provided by visitors, who would come for the day with their children to marvel at these remarkable individuals who in exchange for a few luxuries and some love, provide so much.
But seriously, without poking fun, it is a pet hypothesis of mine that individuals exist who have the same or better acumen and genius of our current billionaires, yet without an accompanying yearning for personal accumulation beyond that of a decent life free of wants and imbued with true eudaimonia, with genuine egalitarian opportunities for fulfilment, and also a delight and love of creation for itself rather than money, excessive luxury, and power. In other words, authentic philanthropists, who do not need to first accumulate more than half the wealth of an entire planet before munificently bestowing some of it back over the inhabitants, in dribs and drabs, according to fiat, and with their name attached (as in the Gates, Soros, Buffett, and so on foundation). Reputation and belonging would be their currency, rather than what it is now, estrangement and a separateness.
The subject of billionaires is for another day. The long and short of thoughts versus beliefs is that while thoughts can be held and considered without worry, it pays to be wary of beliefs. To continually question them, and welcome when others question them honestly, with the intention of arriving at truth rather than scoring a point or advancing an agenda.