A Quote by Bill Vaughan

Insofar as theology is an attempt to define and clarify intellectual positions, it is apt to lead to discussion, to differences of opinion, even to controversy, and hence to be divisive. And this has had a strong tendency to dampen serious discussion of theological issues in most groups, and hence to strengthen the general anti-intellectual bias.
There are two principles on which all men of intellectual integrity and good will can agree, as a 'basic minimum,' as a precondition of any discussion, co-operation or movement toward an intellectual Renaissance. . . . They are not axioms, but until a man has proved them to himself and has accepted them, he is not fit for an intellectual discussion. These two principles are: a. that emotions are not tools of cognition; b. that no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others.
It is only when someone cannot defend his opinion, and is not interested in believing the truth, that he will attempt to stifle discussion with good manners. Those who take religion, politics and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they do not take offence when they are shown to be wrong. If you start to feel during a discussion, that you are not so much incorrect as insensitive, then you are probably dealing with a respectable bigot.
Today the term "global" can no longer constitute a serious topic for an in-depth intellectual discussion because it simply means "Camerica".
If you take a strong stance and have a clear opinion or statement on any subject online, you're going to polarize people. And without that polarity, there's no discussion. Discussion is what I want, which means that I'm fine with the consequences.
The discussions of every age are filled with the issues on which its leading schools of thought differ. But the general intellectual atmosphere of the time is always determined by the views on which the opposing schools agree. They become the unspoken presuppositions of all thought, and common and unquestioningly accepted foundations on which all discussion proceeds.
There is nothing wrong with intellectual differences flowing from freedom of thought as long as such differences remain confined to intellectual debates.
The drama may be called that part of theatrical art which lends itself most readily to intellectual discussion: what is left is theater.
It is the good fortune of the affluent country that the opportunity cost of economic discussion is low and hence it can afford all kinds.
If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.
If you let things devolve into a shouting match, then it's really difficult to have a discussion, a serious discussion.
Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.
As a leader... I have always endeavored to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion. Oftentimes, my own opinion will simply represent a consensus of what I heard in the discussion. I always remember the axiom; a leader is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.
I think, in my own state, I can tell you that people do want to hear a serious discussion on serious issues.
Young people are having a hard time with what's reality and what's fantasy these days...We created discussion. It wasn't to create controversy for sale's sake, but rather it was my obligation to use the medium for discussion. Nobody's discussing the grown-up topics; they are faking and fronting.
If somebody comes to a neighborhood coffee hour, or goes to a discussion group, and they have a discussion, I do think that people really walk away with a real understanding of the issues.
I hate intellectual discussion. When I hear the words 'phenomenology' or 'structuralism', I reach for my buck knife.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!