2

When someone explains or discusses a topic intermitently switching to various persperctives, which are previously defined and named.

I've seen this often, e.g. in Shelly Kagan's course Death or Michael Sandel's course Justice.

e.g. "From the physicalist view, we can say so and so. And from the dualist view, we can say such and such."

The speaker is not really mentioning their own perspective at all, but rather, making each statement as a function of a specific pre-defined perspective. You are not really commiting to something being true, but rather, something being true from a given perspective.

I love this thing, and I try to put it into practice often. But... does it have a name?

edit: I know some people may perceive this as a bad thing, as being dishonest, weaselly and deceptive, etc. --- To be clear: I don't seek to discuss any of that at this time. I'm just looking for a name, if there is any.

Improve this question
11
  • 2
    Not strong enough for an answer, but check the concept of "consilience". It is more about reaching conclusions than viewing things from various perspectives - or rather "domains", but it might nonetheless refer to what you are looking for. BTW, nice question.
    – Olaf
    Jul 26, 2022 at 18:06
  • 2
    @causative Academic philosophy is all about understanding and being able to paraphrase philosophical standpoints of others. It is an important skill to even be able to form a position of your own in the first place and even more important when it comes to teaching. Please stop imposing your view on others.
    – Philip Klöcking ♦
    Jul 26, 2022 at 19:33
  • @Olaf Not an exact answer, but I appreciate the input nevertheless!
    – superiggy
    Jul 26, 2022 at 19:55
  • 2
    See perspectivism which is often misinterpreted as a form of relativism or as a rejection of objectivity entirely...
    – Double Knot
    Jul 26, 2022 at 20:42
  • 1
    @superiggy, it's pluralism, albeit not a committed semantic example so much as a pragmatic one ("for the purpose of this discussion" & similar phrases). Of course, a pluralist about pluralism-vs.-monism will tend to sound less dogmatic than a semantic commitment would push one towards. ---Also consider "overlapping consensus" and "common ground" (that last one shows up in religious apologetics, at least).
    – Kristian Berry
    Jul 26, 2022 at 22:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

This seems a form of passive learning, where information is just presented, and the learner should take its own conclusions. But passive learning does not focus on multiple perspectives, just on passively presenting information.

If the explainer makes judgements, this ends up being the dialectical method. This last specifically addresses multiple points of view/sources of information, but is not what you search since it is intended to lead judgements.

Improve this answer
3
  • It's contrasted with dialectic. Dialectic is all about putting forth what you personally think and why, and analyzing what the other person thinks and why.
    – causative
    Jul 26, 2022 at 19:16
  • 2
    @causative Dialectics are about putting antithetical propositions against each other and solving the juxtaposition either by dismissing one side, or synthesis, or reformulation. Nothing more, nothing less. In any case, it always involves taking other positions seriously and considering them carefully, no matter which use or historical period we speak about.
    – Philip Klöcking ♦
    Jul 26, 2022 at 19:46
  • @PhilipKlöcking The topic was the dialectical method in debate, not Hegelian dialectics. The point of dialectic is that you do not merely describe what someone else thinks, but that the participants analyze and criticize it and compare it with their own views. They take a stand. Of course, you need to understand what the other person thinks, or what a third party thinks, but if you only say that and do not say what you think, you are not participating in dialectic.
    – causative
    Jul 26, 2022 at 21:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .