-
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debateTerrapin you’re the one making claims that people don’t believe what they themselves say. Where is the evidence of this?
-
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debatealso that’s not what I claimed either if you’re taking it out of the context of the paragraph.
“Honesty first modesty second is always the best policy in my eyes. If you don’t believe someone has countered your claims effectively enough for you to believe it and as far as you can tell you haven’t given off any of the emotional responses you normally get when you believe someone has proved you wrong logically to you, (it’s a pain response) then you should be honest in saying you disagree with someone, provide counter arguments or point out the flaws in their logic or ask clarifying questions to give the other person room to expand. However if you feel that pain response then their is probably something there you agree with deep down. Doesn’t necessarily mean you or the other party is wrong or right in reality but your belief is very important. Question all of it sure and think about things and see if your pain response was wrong and even check to see if their should have been one.”
So it’s a lot more nuanced than you isolating loan parts of it as standalone. -
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debatehave I said anything I don’t really believe?
-
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debateI could do without people being humble as long as they're honest. I think people often respond in ways that aren't very honest here. At least I hope that's the case, because the other alternatives would be even more disheartening
Honesty first modesty second is always the best policy in my eyes. If you don’t believe someone has countered your claims effectively enough for you to believe it and as far as you can tell you haven’t given off any of the emotional responses you normally get when you believe someone has proved you wrong logically to you, (it’s a pain response) then you should be honest in saying you disagree with someone, provide counter arguments or point out the flaws in their logic or ask clarifying questions to give the other person room to expand. However if you feel that pain response then their is probably something there you agree with deep down. Doesn’t necessarily mean you or the other party is wrong or right in reality but your belief is very important. Question all of it sure and think about things and see if your pain response was wrong and even check to see if their should have been one.
Humility only has to come if honesty requires it.
Usually though I find it hard to know whether or not people who react with anger to my views aren’t either believing some of what I say and protecting themselves from that, or are ideologically predisposed to be angry at the views I posit themselves for whatever reason or any motivations between that I’m not seeing. The point is the anger isn’t helpful because it just ends up spreading and clouding everyone’s judgement to the point where real discussion is impossible. That in and of itself makes angry people very hard to listen to in philosophy as their arguments are much poorer than if they had taken a step back to calm down and engage in a more conducive manner to them producing better quality counter arguments than if they had come in angry.
Saying all this as someone who does have an anger problem too. First to admit that. Which is why I know first hand that it doesn’t help and it clouds the mind which is what it feels like genuinely too. Like a hot black cloud inside your head narrowing your perspective and closing off easy access to the rational parts of the brain.
That and realistically we all have our mental health to take care off too, I’ve been off Facebook for quite awhile too for this reason. Too many studies are coming out about the use of social media and the effects it is having on people’s mental health for me to want to take too many risks with mine.
Having and wanting people you can discuss ideas with in a safe way is something everyone needs in life. What people do with social media, their are few things like it in real life. It’s not often you’ll see people stop in the middle of the street, loudly proclaim their thoughts and ideas with a megaphone that can theoretically reach everyone on the planet and then have people from all over the world share their thoughts, criticism, praise, insults and even threats with that original person.
Imagine this; When you leave the house every single person you walk past seems to have something to say to you and a lot of it isn’t nice. The way you dress, talk, think, look, identify, job etc.. imagine that was your reality every day. Then realise that with social media, that IS a lot of people’s reality every day all done through a phone. At this point, being on social media is becoming a form of self sabotage a lot of the time. :/ -
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debateCan you be harsh to your friends and kind to adversaries? If I agree with someone I go for the throat - not to ‘win’. I mean I actively look for a means of conflict.
I do too, but I don’t send a flying strawman kick to the balls either.
The way I describe my style, is to throw stones at stones thrown to stop them hitting their mark but don’t throw stones at people unless they hit you or someone else. -
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debateIf there’s a rabid beast at your door don’t kick it. If there is a docile beast at your door kick it into life. I have a feeling it is these kind of approaches that get mixed up that bothers you? Insisting on humility does more to kick a rabid beast than placate it. Walk away and don’t be tempted to put the boot in on leaving.
Bit of an unfair comparison. If they were rabid beasts we’d be able to argue for shooting them before they bite us.
I understand the point though. Ignore the troll and don’t bother with impression management because they’ve already given the impression to the people I want to reach that they are a troll. Got it. -
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debate
that was kind of implied by this, only perfect beings can recognise perfect answers or other perfect beings.you could also maybe make an argument that the perfect person can only be recognised as such by other perfect beings. -
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debateI didn’t take the bait for the same reason I got frustrated with the other venomous comments. They all made the assumption that I put the intellectual honesty post up to make a point to certain individuals instead of being more direct. The post is for everyone and I don’t really have time for people calling me arrogant when they genuinely thought the post was meant for them specifically.
I also put it up because I have been just as guilty of being venomous, monologic and arrogant as these individuals in the past and the Adam Ruins everything video genuinely helped free me from the burden of thinking in a way that was contributing to that.
Yet did anyone watch the video? I don’t even know, no one talked about it. I could have had a lot of people’s comments removed for being completely off topic but I let it go along because I got justifiably defensive that so many people made assumptions about my motivations that I had to act. Add to that another commenter going into detail on the mentality of trolls and me seeing it in a lot of the troll behaviour I just didn’t see what I could do or say to them that would do any good to dissuade them from their assumptions. Then I remembered that I don’t care about wrong assumptions and that I’m not even here to talk about myself anyway.
Would it really have been that hard for them to talk to me about this as diplomatically as you have?
I don’t have high expectations in standards of behaviour in individuals. I swear like a sailor and have no concept of taboo and if you have a problem you can talk my ear off about it.
People have been assuming things about me my whole life, literally. Doctors assumed I’d die within hours of being born as I was 12 days overdue and I had to be given cpr (which broke one of my ribs and it grew at an odd angle because the person had never done cpr on a baby and didn’t know you’re to use your fingers for heart compressions not your palm) and put into an incubator before being housed in a contaminated ward that hadn’t been cleaned down yet and I got a chest infection which had me in and out of hospital for over a year with many predictions made about my death and it’s never really stopped. Assumption after assumption, being called a bad kid, being in trouble all the time and my anger at being accused of lying all the time made it easy for the kids at school to absolutely terrorise me and get me into all sorts of trouble. I didn’t even get diagnosed with Aspergers until I was 23 years old.
Me and my Psychiatrist spoke at length to common misunderstandings of motivation in people on the spectrum. Some of our behaviour comes off as arrogant but it’s motivationally different to narcissism because it’s usually motivated by access to uncompartmentalised memory and low latent inhibition as opposed to a grandiose sense of self.
This leads to high levels of detail orientation and nuance in my writing.
Here is why to me it doesn’t make logical sense for people to come onto this and call me arrogant; How can a person be arrogant, posting asking people to not be arrogant, which is motivated out of recognition that I personally have been arrogantly wrong in my life as has every other person I’ve met? It just doesn’t really make sense to me and I’ve reached a point in my life now where if I can’t correct an incorrect assumption about me within one or two messages then the person wants to believe it of me and I can’t be bothered with them online anymore at all. I have to make allowances in my personal life but don’t see why I should have to here. Plenty of people here have disagreed with me about things here whom I haven’t had heated arguments with because they didn’t make assumptions about me, they asked me.
When people make assumptions about me I make them right back, because to me that’s them signifying that’s how they want to be treated. -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?Broad Pessimism in my eyes would probably be best applied by soldiers on the battlefield. “I might die, so I should act” which is much better than “I am going to die and action is pointless” however that does not discount the narrow pessimist from acting either. You know what they say about someone with nothing to lose or someone who’s back is against the wall.
I could even say “I am narrowly pessimistic that an asteroid is going to hit the earth” but my knowledge that I don’t know when this is going to happen or even if it is in my lifetime makes me act.
However I’ll probably act differently than most as I try and live by “If you can act, you do not need to worry, if you can’t act then worrying will get you nowhere.” -
Perfection: Is it possible?I completely get where you’re coming from here. While I do have a store of quotes I remember like everyone I try and keep my arguments independent of other philosophers on here unless it’s really needed.
I remember on another philosophy forum all the posts would be titled things like “What does Kant/Hobbes/Schopenhauer/Spinoza etc think/believe about X, Y and Z?
They would debate each other for hours on what they all thought these people were trying to say and very few people sharing what they thought about what was said. It was kind of like everyone was just sharing what they really thought about what was said under the guise that the philosopher being discussed thought exactly what they thought.
They would quote something, ask what it meant, someone would reply and then someone would quote something else which contradicts that interpretation and in the end everyone rightly gets accused of misunderstanding whoever it is they are interpreting.
I sometimes wonder if some people go through books with a highlighter to pick quotes out of context that back up their beliefs or look like they do and then just memorise them and only them as if to cut out the rest of the book and destroy its context.
Here’s an example with a quote I remember very well by Marcus Aurelius: “Waste no time arguing about what a good man should be, be one” yet my very presence here is indicative of the fact that I don’t fully believe that and in the context of Marcus Aurelius this was something he HAD to live by. He was the emperor of the Roman Empire and he felt duty bound to be decisive and literally did not want to waste too much time arguing with people who could never comprehend the demands of leadership over such a vast empire or understand the position he was in.
However I remember it because sometimes it’s useful, when a situation might call for decisive action instead of debate.
Fact of the matter is, we can never know what these people truly meant or thought nor how they would react to our ideas, based on what they said but we can know what we think of those words today.
If you see people, and things in general, as unique individuals, it's easy to see each thing as perfect. It's perfectly what it is at every given moment.
Very well said. :) -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?I think this is the key. What we are really talking about here is optimism vs. pessimism in the case of serious and complex situations with lots of unknowns. In that context, to me, optimism takes the form of believing that "we can make a difference" not just that "the best result will ensue" (a la Leibniz). Pessimism that "there is nothing we can do".
Yes, exactly so. Have you seen @Pfhorrest comment on here about the terms Narrow and Broad being applied to Optimism and Pessimism?
Broad Optimism" in the sense that a solution is possible, the negation of narrow pessimism.
"Narrow Optimism" in the sense that a solution is guaranteed, a subset of broad optimism.
"Broad Pessimism" in the sense that a solution is not guaranteed, the negation of narrow optimism.
"Narrow Pessimism in the sense that a solution is impossible, a subset of broad pessimism.
These are just the four basic logical modalities (possibility, necessity, contingency, and impossibility) applied to the solvability of the problem.
It seems to me that some people are arguing against narrow pessimism and so in favor of broad optimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow optimism), while other people are arguing against narrow optimism and so in favor of broad pessimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow pessimism). Those two arguments are compatible with each other, and if both are right (as I agree) then [the right attitude is to assume that] a solution is what I like to call merely possible: possible but contingent.
What did you think of this? -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?I don't think anyone alive made the rule "don't kill." We just follow it when it suits us. Sometimes we value life, sometimes we don't
Uhm, okay? Thou shalt not kill obviously doesn’t mean what it says then.
I don’t know about that, biology does a good job of making us value air, food, water etc. Maybe I’m faking it though, maybe I don’t really need food or water or air?
— Mark Dennis
You separate yourself from your biology? That's a neat trick.
Literally the complete opposite of what I’m doing.
Truly becoming nihilistic isn't something everybody is going to do. It's not a way of thinking I'd recommend (or warn against for that matter.) It just comes.
Nihilism is for people in their early twenties. Been there, done that. The perspective still has its uses in certain times and areas but not as a fixed ideology. -
Perfection: Is it possible?Apologies, I should have grabbed the conversation but the claim I made was something like this; Nobody can be perfect, to be perfect is to be unassailable and as nobody is unassailable nobody can be perfect.
While we both agreed (me and @creativesoul) that a perfect person doesn’t exist, I got to wondering if anyone could make a good argument for the existence of a perfect something. -
Perfection: Is it possible?Nevermind, got you now.
So is perfection when something has a purpose and is also serving it? -
Perfection: Is it possible?Sorry Pantagruel you’ve went over my head a bit there. Can you elaborate please?
-
Perfection: Is it possible?Have to agree with you. While a tool may be perfect for a job, such as using perfection itself as a tool for self improvement this implies that the perfection gained here is temporary while the tool is being used for purpose but imperfect when laid down and is unused.
-
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debate“To be perfect is to be unassailable, so it stands to reason that if you are being assailed then you are not perfect.” did I say that if one is being assailed that one is being mistaken? No I said, not perfect.
A non perfect person giving a right answer can still be assailed by others. A perfect answer given by a perfect person wouldn’t be assailed because everyone would know it was a perfect answer.
Of course, since none of us has true knowledge of a perfect being it would be quite difficult to prove this haha you could also maybe make an argument that the perfect person can only be recognised as such by other perfect beings. -
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debatePerfect knowledge is right. So, if one can be right and assailed, then it is not true that if one is being assailed one is not right(perfect).
That was the context...
While I’d say this is true of precision based sciences, in our line of work we have to craft and form long and nuanced arguments, descriptions, analysis etc and while facts stated singularly may be examples of perfect knowledge, opinions on the implications and meanings of facts are more of a grey area.
If however we say that a fact is perfect knowledge, while a person may be saying something that is perfect in that moment, that does not imply the next thing he says will be of the same quality. So it may be that every now and again a person is speaking perfect knowledge/truth. Does this make the person themselves perfect?
This gives me an idea for a new discussion. I’ll open it up tomorrow.
I’d be very happy to hear your response and look forward to reading it tomorrow. Goodnight! -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?Oh you mean Matthew 23. He didn’t accuse them of making a show of morality.
- Matthew 23 v1-7Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.
4 They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help. 5 Everything they do is just to show off in front of others. They even make a big show of wearing Scripture verses on their foreheads and arms, and they wear big tassels[a] for everyone to see. 6 They love the best seats at banquets and the front seats in the meeting places. 7 And when they are in the market, they like to have people greet them as their teachers.
Simply put, Jesus is saying the Pharisees are hypocrites because they teach morality according to the laws of Moses but act immorally and against the laws of Moses.
You can't be made to value something. You can only be made to put on a show.
Why would we need to make rules around our values?
I don’t know about that, biology does a good job of making us value air, food, water etc. Maybe I’m faking it though, maybe I don’t really need food or water or air?
Well for example, you don’t make a rule “don’t kill” unless you value life in some way. Ethics is the study of value theory. I don’t really know how to put this any more simply for you. -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?Yeah sorry that was poorly written. My point is, saying we should be optimistic/pessimistic about things is quite non specific. Context and nuance is helpful
-
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debateEvidently I’m one of the few people that took the sites rules about respect seriously.
I’m really done with you trolls for today and I’m not taking your bait. Anyone can go back and clearly read through my interactions with people and the only opinions here I care about are the people that treat me with the same respect I give them and don’t give off this monologic bs trying to defend others for having crappy behaviour. You’re here trying to pick fights, not me. Bye now. :) -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?Well first I’d just like to know where exactly you heard that Jesus said Morality is often for show? Where is that written exactly?
Forget the bird example let me ask something a little simpler. Is it a rule to value things or do we make rules around our values?
Why command that I don’t kill the bird? Does the teacher value the life of the bird? -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?Optimism is the expectation that things won't get any worse; and (somehow) things will get better. (Re: nostalgic)
• Pessimism is the expectation that things won't get any better; and (somehow - let me count the effin' ways) things will get worse. (Re: entropic)
Isn’t generally saying “things” making this a bit too general? I don’t really think it is a case of we should only feel optimistic and we should always be pessimistic toward everything. Can a person not be optimistic that turning the key will start the car but pessimistic that it will make it out of the street at the same time?
To me, adaptive pragmatism demands evaluating what you should and shouldn’t be pessimistic or optimistic about. I can be optimistic about my ability to act to make better a pessimistic view of the future. As opposed to being irrationally optimistic about the future despite all the evidence of why you shouldn’t be optimistic about it. Our outlooks aren’t always uniform for every single thing. -
Fallacies: A list of 31 known logical fallacies4th wall break inside a 4th wall break... that’s like 16 walls!
-
Should we be going to Mars or using the tech required on Earth?
@Isaac (Sorry I wrote this awhile ago but forgot to tag)The trouble is, there's potential solutions and there's actual solutions. The problem of climate change has been caused almost in its entirety by what were called 'solutions' to other problems - how to feed the ever growing population, how to provide white goods to poorer people, how to make whatever bigger, faster, cheaper... These were all 'problems' at the time and the 'solutions' we came up with are the very things which caused the next problem. As a thought experiment (you'll need a bit of anthropology to do this right) try to make a list of technological advances which are not aimed at solving a problem brought about by previous technological advances. The list is quite thin.
Solar cells have their indium problem at the moment, when that's solved (probably with graphene), they'll be a graphene problem that we hadn't thought of. Wind power has it's limits too (what some people don't seem to realise is that the wind is actually doing something, it's not just wasted energy, it's driving the weather)... So it's not a matter of solving any problems, it's a question of rates. Can we solve one problem quicker than the inevitable next problem (caused by our previous solution) arises. I think what we're experiencing now with climate change, mass extinction, pollution buffers filling up etc is not just another problem to solve like we did with the others, its a symptom of our solution-induced problems catching up with us, our rate of finding new solutions is not keeping up with the rate at which problems are caused by them.
So we know that life is always on a slippery slope? That argument could have really been made at any point in both recorded and unrecorded history. It’s never been reason enough not to act though. What you’re really describing is the nature of evolution. Which is random; problem, adapt, fail, adapt, succeed, Problem, adapt. But those failed adaptations are piled up between successes all through the genetic code of all life. The real question is; when does the slippery slope end? Can we see it’s end? When will the house of cards fall? Do any of us know exactly? Could be an asteroid impact within five minutes of me writing this.
Problems and solutions come hand in hand but when has that ever really been a good enough reason to sit around bored waiting for death in rigid states of anxiety? It does you no good, just means you’ll die faster. I know what anxiety is I’ve had it all my life. Anxiety is useful, it’s part of our many defence and survival mechanisms and it motivates us to make the changes we need to be Justifiably comfortable.
I agree with one of the implications in your argument however; that seeking ridiculous amounts of comfort, ease and meaningless entertainment are extremely near impossible to kill problems. They always seem to crop back up.
Imagine this scenario; you are chained to a wall by your ankles and are in a prison cell with an open door. To your right you see a sword and a note.
The note reads;Over 365 days you will be brought food, water and will be washed. On the first day of next year all these things will cease and you will be left to die. Also, every night a tiger will come into your cell and attempt to eat you. Use the sword to fight it off each night, he’s scared of the sight of his own blood but is immortal and will follow you even after you escape so take the sword with you. The pommel of the sword can be used to wear away the mortar the chain that binds you is imbedded in, within 365 days. If you free yourself before the tiger kills you, no one will stop you leaving.”
What do you do?
Besides, every now and then evolution throws out a thumb. -
Fallacies: A list of 31 known logical fallaciesAlso, I love the profile picture. If I change mine to Hobbes can we be best friends? Haha
-
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?https://news.wttw.com/2018/10/10/what-global-warming-could-mean-lake-michigan
While shore levels aren’t being cited as a worry here, it is not all sunshine and roses. Bacteria levels will need to be addressed, introduction of warm water fish. At the moment though, if the water contamination can be curbed, the lake states will be a source of fresh water for awhile.
Realistically though, retirement and setting up shop in Siberia is from what I can make out of my research, is probably going to be one of the best places to be for survival. While other places are becoming too hot, Siberia will be becoming lush fertile farmland. Although, the melting permafrost also has the potential to release ancient bacteria and viruses although I need to do more research on that to figure out if that fear is legitimate.
Thank you kindly for your well wishes too! Please keep safe as you can. -
Fallacies: A list of 31 known logical fallaciesactually yeah I think you’re right my bad. I mean, the second line is still a fallacy. If the first line responder had said something like “you should believe me because I’m an animal biologist” then it’s purely the fallacy fallacy in response as this would use the appeal to authority.
-
Fallacies: A list of 31 known logical fallaciesMy favourite is the fallacy fallacy haha assuming that because an argument contains a logical fallacy the conclusion must be wrong.
Lava is hot because a dragon under the Earth heats it all up
Dragons don’t exist therefore lava cannot possibly be hot! -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?As a species we're wired to deny that we're ever fucked - especially by our own wishful negligence. Except for fringe types, homo insapiens refuses to be pessimistic enough to grapple en mass with the hazards trending (above) and so they'll go on 'amusing themselves to death' until they're begging to die rather than watch each other's babies starve or slowly waste away from thirst in briny drowned cityscapes. The optimistic cunts who wage wars feeding masses of other optimistic cunts down abattoirs of convenience, profit or ruin always do so again because THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT; the latest and greatest war to come: surviving the "climate change" (near?)extinction event. AND THIS TIME, FOR US, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT ... for fuck's sake.
This is pretty raw and real.. Are you okay? Nobody is saying, this time it will be different. At least I’m not, there will always be a next fight to move onto... but we’re probably not going to be around for those. The thing is though in some way the future is always different, I mean we made up a system to track the time and log phases of when light is and isn’t hitting us. its ridiculous to think that most humans celebrate their birthday every year when in reality the day never really came back.
This is where we’d say that narrow pessimism is crippling, because when in the midst of tough situations there is always someone who freaks out and says “we are all going to die” and it’s easy to be that guy because given enough time you’re always proven right. That’s not the same as saying “we are all going to die right now by this tragedy” and you don’t know that.
I mean, you need to think about it like this; those elites at the top who are benefiting from all this. They want you to be narrowly pessimistic so you don’t raise a finger to them.
I will tell you something though, everyone reaches a point where biology takes over and the self saving optimism kicks in. You see it in people who run away from tsunamis. Their mind knows it’s a lost cause but the body still spurs you to run away as if you have a chance. However, for the ones only a short distance from higher ground, they have a chance. There will always be survivors. Banding together sooner rather than later is better than doing nothing at all and fighting your bodies survival mechanisms in reality is a form of suicide. -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?That’s awful! Are you safe right now? I think we need to maybe have conversations about where people can definitely not survive climate change and that is coastlines for sure. :/ apparently the bay here (Boston) flooded yesterday with heavy rain during high tide. Moving to Chicago soon.
-
Philosophy of Therapy: A quick PollI need to remember that more often! Keep getting taken in by these trolls and engaging with them the way I would anyone else. Drawbacks of egalitarianism I guess.
-
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?Can you see how that if I command you to value birds (when you don't of your own sentiment), then your actions will be hollow, and you'll likely drop iy when you realize I have no power over you?
An interesting perspective. So for this we will hypothetically say that you are my teacher. Which I actually do identify you as because I don’t believe in a student teacher relationship, only ever teacher - teacher because people cannot interact without teaching the other about themselves.
So you my teacher have commanded me to value birds, (I love birds haha) one day I realise that you have no power over me. Have I stopped valuing you? -
How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?I mean that we’ve been stuck in a world (humanity), for a long time, where ethical ideas and law have taken away human choice and responsive social activity.
Forming ethical ideas and law IS a form of responsive social activity though?
Morality and ethics is largely the study of value theory. Unless I meet a human that values absolutely nothing then I’ll not believe there is no such thing as ethics and morality because all life seems to keep going on valuing things. I mean, even rocks have the value of their own being without being aware of it. That rocks exist is a fundamental value statement in and of itself because it’s intrinsically more than nothing. 0 vs 1.
You right now are getting something you value out of engaging in discussion. You even value the idea that there is no morality, yet you are valuing.
Now, you could be right to say that if what we call reality is a computer simulation in some larger universe that it may be that this “real” universe has no morals or value. However, this is pretty implausible because it implies that the computer simulation we may be in is purely abstract and not based on anything that exists in that reality, which wouldn’t really match up with the fact that our video games try to emulate parts of reality and the ones that are mostly abstract (because they cannot be purely abstract) are usually more simplistic than the ones we base on reality. Take gravity for example; if this is a simulation, where did the idea for gravity come from? Is there a gravity like force in a larger universe that is the inspiration for the simulations gravity?
Yet if we can know we are in a computer simulation we can know two things, that the beings there who made the simulation value computer simulations, and that they value.
Now I’m not sure I buy simulation theory; however the idea that value doesn’t exist is mathematically incorrect as we are all beings greater than 0. -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Should Trump supporters be treated like addicts? That’s not to say lock them up in rehab or anything like that; just that maybe we should reframe how we engage with them. In order to account for the backfire effect. Ask what it is about trump that makes them feel good, listen to their beliefs about what he is going to do for them personally and instead of going directly up against them, try and find the rational route of the problem and explain how other candidates are genuinely more aware of this problem and have actually shown success in tackling said problem at a smaller scale than national or international and provide evidence that this candidate cares about what they do and can get things done about it, and show them all evidence of trump actually making things worse for the addict.
Obviously it’s not as simple as this; however I think it needs to be said. Trump fans are behaving a lot like addicts when you try and take their drugs away. For example the republicans going all rogue warrior into closed depositions taking devices into a SCIF is the sort of thing you’d expect addicts to do if they were to find out that their family is meeting behind their back plotting to take their drugs away. -
Intellectual honesty and honest collaborative debateI get what you mean, however is being right the same as being perfect?
Also, I’d agree that one does not need to be known to be respectable.
Let’s take Albert Schweitzer for example, he had headlines written about him describing him as such things like “the greatest man alive” “best person” and such. Now, if you read Schweitzer’s ethical vision it does all sound pretty egalitarian and progressive for the times he was around, however by today’s standards although he would still be considered progressive, he would still be described as a bit of a positive racist with his paternalism over non-white races. Sure he saw other races as brothers and sisters, but he saw himself as the elder sibling. So in some ways he’s respectable, I’ve not come across many others that are aware of him too and while you could argue he was progressive and maybe one of the best people around at the time, he wasn’t perfect. -
Philosophy of Therapy: A quick PollOkay.
when other's go around indirectly claiming this form of faux-humility (which is really just faux low-self esteem self-depreciation posts glossed up to look noble)
attempting to lower the confidence that other's may have; and pseudo-diagnosing people with emotional problems while claiming to have some transcendent upperhand on self-reflection/critical self-analysis, and etc.
I’d argue that all humility, faux or otherwise comes from insecurity. However we shouldn’t be saying insecurity like it’s a bad thing as I honestly feel our insecurity is what forces us to be humble. Acknowledging that no one is secure in the first place is important here.
Also you do realise that reading this back, your whole response also sounds like “pseudo-diagnosing people with emotional problems while claiming to have some transcendent upperhand on self-reflection/critical self-analysis, and etc.”?
That to me, is the nature of philosophy. Conflict. So conflict-avoidant people (shining their superior passivity), attempting to intervene and silence different communication styles that hold more conviction than yours makes little sense to me. But sure, let's call people that speak with conviction "aggressive," "rude" etc, etc. THESE types of silencing tactics do not work on me. Save your bullshit, honestly. As someone that's taken various speech classes and has been said to have a naturally commanding tone, I find these posts about silencing diverse communication styles to be just nonsensical.
I mean the nature of reality is conflict really.
It is just a pet-peeve of mine when other's go around indirectly claiming this form of faux-humility
Well it’s a pet peeve of mine to come onto a philosophy forum, expecting to talk about philosophy and expecting people to be able to argue well enough to convince you that you are wrong when you really are. Yet when they refuse to read what is written (which you and god must be atheist have both claimed not to do) with my posts and comments and start saying unhelpful things like calling me an entitled manchild and saying I sound like this and that just because they can’t come up with an argument, when they refuse to do all of this then it’s nolonger a talk about philosophy. It’s just some basic response that I could get from anyone on the street really.
So tell me, why should I give a damn about your pet peeve when you don’t understand mine?
Are you saying I have faux humility because I actually do or because you are jealous of the fact that I have real humility? Or are you just showing off to try and get off with Jellyfish?
Now, I actually apologised and I’ll let that apology stand.
However I do not accept your “Sorry, I'm not an asshole, but..” response. Try again. I’m being my authentic self, if this is your authentic self then that’s fine. Right now though, the only difference between us is I see you as an iceberg but you look back and see a mountain. I’m not a mountain.
It still amazes me sometimes that someone as rude as yourself can call people names, contribute nothing to discussions except vitriol and then give a crappy “I’m sorry, but you deserved” it response because I actually genuinely felt sorry for the way I treated you because I understand one thing. It takes two to tango.
Oh you’ve done speech classes? That’s nice, I’ve got a masters in ethics. However neither of us should be making appeals to authority because it’s fallacious and you kinda want to try and avoid fallacies in philosophical debate.
Oh I see, so when you command things and others don’t listen your ego gets bruised and you call them insecure for not recognising your true place as leader of all? Right then. Maybe you should read my intellectual honesty post again and take some notes. Unfortunately though I’m not so weak willed that I bow to trumpism.As someone that's taken various speech classes and has been said to have a naturally commanding tone, I find these posts about silencing diverse communication styles to be just nonsensical.
“Silencing diverse communication styles”
Example 1
Student: Professor, you’re an arrogant manchild
Professor: get out.
Student to other student during debate: you’re an arrogant manchild
Professor to insulting student: you’ve lost the debate.
Get over yourself.
deletedmemberMD
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum