Richard Cohen Quotes

I think intelligence basically can be in a way defined by the possibility of having two opposite ideas living together and at the same time functioning. That's why I think a smart script has two things living in the same place, and they're absolutely contradictory.

I think the biggest mistake I made was this wretched ability to see both sides of an argument.

People learn the most about themselves by confronting those with whom they deeply disagree..

I listen to my political rivals sometimes with fear and trembling, sometimes with awe, sometimes with near panic, but always with a curiosity of nuances, curiosity for the language, curiosity for the story behind the 'impossible' position.

Above all, the ability to feel the force of an argument apart from the substance it deals with is the strongest weapon against prejudice.

There is one thing I know about creative conflict: once my argument is exhausted, I am not going to be unhappy whether it moves in my direction or away.

You know, interesting minds usually do hold more than one idea at a time.

I'm not looking for a 'yes' woman, but a strong person who knows when to be objective and when not to be.

Relativism is neither a method of fighting, nor a method of creating, for both of these are uncompromising and at times even ruthless; rather, it is a method of cognition.

I can easily hold two opposing beliefs at the same time without any problem, which I find - well, mind-expanding, really.

I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head.

The real use of imaginative reading is precisely to suspend one's mind in the workings of another sensibility.

I decided to get to know my opponents and their arguments.

In debate, one randomly was assigned to one side or the other. This had at least one virtue - it made one see that there was more than one side to these complex issues.

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

I think that in some ways everybody is like Roger. Everybody thinks that when their friends have a problem, that they know the answer and that it's much easier to analyze the problems of other people than your own.

It is as deadly for a mind to have a system as to have none. Therefore it will have to decide to combine both.

Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time.

I think it's important to have perspective and to look at what you don't necessarily want to see.

It is only through the opposition of ideas that we can learn to be self-critical, to work towards intellectual humility.

The hardest thing in the world, I now know, is to hold in your head that it is okay to think that you are right, but not to think so necessarily because everyone who disagrees with you is wrong or stupid or duped or bad.

You don’t want an appointee who will agree with you all the time. If two smart people are both thinking they are going to disagree with each other sooner or later. You want an appointee who may not always agree with you but one of whom you can always be proud.

I'm too much of a Libra. I too often see the other person's point of view and capitulate, even though I have strong political convictions. It's just my liability. Maybe I'm too empathetic. That's the actor in me.

Some of my colleagues I have the most differences with in decisions are ones with whom I have a very friendly relationship. You have to be able to step back and look at the issues and your colleagues.