You know how much I am inclined to explain all disputes among philosophical schools as merely verbal disputes or at least to derive them originally from verbal disputes.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I have never entered into any controversy in defense of my philosophical opinions; I leave them to take their chance in the world. If they are right, truth and experience will support them; if wrong, they ought to be refuted and rejected. Disputes are apt to sour one's temper and disturb one's quiet.
Most quarrels amplify a misunderstanding.
There are few circumstances which so strongly distinguish the philosopher, as the calmness with which he can reply to criticisms he may think undeservedly severe.
We are not won by arguments that we can analyze, but by tone and temper; by the manner, which is the man himself.
We make out of the quarrel with others, rhetoric, but of the quarrel with ourselves, poetry.
People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.
We are not won by arguments that we can analyse but by tone and temper, by the manner which is the man himself.
You've never seen me debate anybody. On anything. Ever. My investment of time, as an educator, in my judgment, is best served teaching people how to think about the world around them. Teach them how to pose a question. How to judge whether one thing is true versus another. What the laws of physics say.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.
I don't care that much about rote memorization. An old boyfriend of mine used to get into lacerating arguments with his parents over facts, and I used to watch on in mute astonishment. How could anyone actually argue about something that could be looked up?
No opposing quotes found.