A Little Deeper

This has been an interesting discourse on integrity and intellectual discipline.  However, Todd, you have shifted the discussion by changing the word order of our discussion.  I hate to get critical here, but it does significantly alter the discussion.  Our original discussion was on ‘integrity and intellectual discipline’ not ‘intellectual integrity’ as your response has stated.  The discussion on the issue of integrity was about how, as Tom had pointed out in his posting, that the Republicans have flip flopped their economics position from the last administration (when they held power) to the new administration (now that the Democrats hold power).  And while I will continue to be critical, I mean nothing personal by it, but, by changing the word order you have misrepresented what was originally stated (sort of the ‘Straw Man’ argument we learned in lesson 3).            The definition of integrity is about ‘adherence to a code’.  If your code is to be open and accepting of new ways to see the world around you (as we hope the brightest minds in our society would be willing) this is in my mind is also the way I would want the world to be (no matter how jaded my glasses are, I hope for this kind of mindset).  But, integrity does imply some preexisting code, often a code of ethics, and when we make association to and identify with a group or a circle, we accept their code.  We are found to have integrity when we adhere to their code and through this our acceptance by and with that group become stronger.  Those that rebel get ostracized or have something happen to them that is far worse.   If you join the military your code is military honor and there is a strict protocol and order to that way of life, when ordered to do… you obey or suffer the consequences.            Intellectual integrity, on the other hand, is adherence to the code of intellectualism which does strive for the discovery of truth within knowledge.  This, however, is not what we are discussing.  Intellectual discipline, here in our discussion, is meant to say and question whether  we (even us common folk) have the skills of critical thinking that can see through the loosey-goosey arguments that lack consistency.