Thanks for this interesting read! I was reminded of how schoolboys in the Renaissance were encouraged to practise "in utramque partem" debates: they had to develop coherent arguments for both sides of a question (often a bit of an outrageous one such as "should one never get married") in order to cultivate flexible minds and powerful persuasion skills with an eye for their later careers as diplomats, lawyers, and civil servants. -- I always thought it was a good thing, and that everything ought to be question-able in the sense of subject to examination, but wonder whether I should re-consider that now... perhaps it depends on the context, too? As in a schoolroom with a specific task for a specific amount of time is different from chatting in a pub? I don't know, but am mulling it over! Thanks again! 🪻
Thanks for this interesting read! I was reminded of how schoolboys in the Renaissance were encouraged to practise "in utramque partem" debates: they had to develop coherent arguments for both sides of a question (often a bit of an outrageous one such as "should one never get married") in order to cultivate flexible minds and powerful persuasion skills with an eye for their later careers as diplomats, lawyers, and civil servants. -- I always thought it was a good thing, and that everything ought to be question-able in the sense of subject to examination, but wonder whether I should re-consider that now... perhaps it depends on the context, too? As in a schoolroom with a specific task for a specific amount of time is different from chatting in a pub? I don't know, but am mulling it over! Thanks again! 🪻