In Defense of the Defenders of Reason

JerseyFlight

What happens when we call an argument a bias?

I have noticed that this takes place quite a bit on this Forum. The people who use this as an argument against a position, are actually trying to evade criticisms that are being made against the integrity of their own position. By characterizing a rational position, as an emotional position, the defender is trying to dismiss it without actually having to deal with it. The unspoken claim is that "the objector's criticisms are false because they are based on emotion." But the most extraordinary thing is that those who are leveling this characterization are actually the ones making use of an emotional argument (or at the very least, a formal fallacy). We all, for the most part, accept the premise that bias and emotion are incompetent standards to resolve philosophical questions. Thus, by characterizing a position as falling into this category, a defender can succeed at poisoning the well against the objector. This tactic is loathsome and contemptible, the defender should not merely be able to characterize the objector's position, but should have to provide a rebuttal of the criticism. Further, the fact that someone is upset by a particular criticism is not evidence that the objector has done something wrong, quite the contrary, it may well be evidence that he or she has done something right!

Another variation of this appraoch is to claim that someone has only made an argument because they're "angry." But philosophy is indifferent to this. In the first instance there is nothing wrong with justified anger, it stems from wounds and these wounds should be addressed, but there is nothing wrong with having anger against genocide, torture, the atrocities of religion or the atrocities of fascism. Tragically, there are many things in life that justify anger. Whether a philosopher speaks from anger or whether he speaks from concern is irrelevant to philosophy itself, the only thing that matters to philosophy is the nature and quality of criticism. Whether an argument is made by an angry man or a concerned man, does not matter one iota to the integrity and power of the argument itself.

When the moderators see these kind of fallacious objections being made, when they see deep offense and high emotions, they should not automatically assume that someone has done something wrong, the first response should be to assume that humans get emotional when their beliefs are challenged, especially if their sense of identity is aligned with their belief. And it is always a mistake to align one's sense of self with one's belief, this is the quickest way to become a dogmatist.

My friends, we must get to the place on this Forum where emotion is not manipulating or sabotaging philosophy, unless emotion happens to be a relevant rebuttal, pending the nature of philosophical context.

Robert Ingersoll: In Defense of the Defenders of Reason

-

Mww

we must get to the place — JerseyFlight

Absolutely. You have historical precedent for cheering folks for expressing their thoughts, so allow me to forward the sentiment.

the only thing that matters to philosophy is the nature and quality of criticism. — JerseyFlight

In the response to it, yes; in the construction of it.....not so much. Unless you want to say, the only thing that matters to philosophy is the criticism by which it is, or is not, validated.

Anyway....good O.P., even if only because I always defend reason.

TheMadFool

This page intentionally left blank

Tzeentch

Anger attempts to hide vulnerability. Whenever one gets angry at the words of another, one should ask themselves why those words are making them feel vulnerable.

When approached as such, emotion can lead to great personal insights, so I don't see why it cannot have a place on this forum.

JerseyFlight

Anger attempts to hide vulnerability. Whenever one gets angry at the words of another, one should ask themselves why those words are making them feel vulnerable. — Tzeentch

Absolutely, this is a most excellent clarification and approach to anger.

When approached as such, emotion can lead to great personal insights, so I don't see why it cannot have a place on this forum. — Tzeentch

What you are talking about here is emotion in an entirely different context. The place that emotion should play on this forum, that I do not know, what I do know is that it should not play the role of displacing or invalidating arguments.

TheMadFool

↪JerseyFlight

The way you've presented the emotion-reason duet as a partnership rather than a rivalry is not wrong per se, in fact it's a truth only a fool would deny.

However, a different line of questioning will help in bringing out which of the two is the one who wears the pants in this relationship. Which would you prefer? Reason OR Emotion? This is an exclusive OR disjunction meaning only one must be selected to the exclusion of the other. I bet most if not all people will choose reason over emotion any day but that's just my opinion of course. I'd be very surprised indeed if people answered my question differently.

dussias

↪JerseyFlight

This is an important subject in rhetoric and it's nice to read your take on it. However, I strongly believe that who's at fault is not the emotional one! It's whoever lets itself take aim at emotions, rather than rationale.

Claiming "you're just saying that because you're angry" is a cheap way to escape an argument, and boy, have I learned that with my partner.

The path that leads to lasting and healthier discussions is understanding that your listener is feeling something. Feelings should be understood and only then addressed, instead of using them as bear traps around which to dance in circles.

However, framing it against a different backdrop will help in bringing out which of the two is the one who wears the pants in this relationship. Which would you prefer? Reason OR Emotion?

↪TheMadFool

Do I love some reasonable arguments! But it's funny, emotions many times provide so much more information about the world. Pride, jealousy, disgust; these have steered humanity since its beginning. The problem is that, to obtain information from emotions, we need to open different channels, those more fit to noise and sights rather than words and meanings.

TheMadFool

Do I love some reasonable arguments! But it's funny, emotions many times provide so much more information about the world. Pride, jealousy, disgust; these have steered humanity since its beginning. The problem is that, to obtain information from emotions, we need to open different channels, those more fit to noise and sights rather than words and meanings. — dussias

Steered?! You might want to rethink that. Does a drunk driver steer himself at 100 mph into a tree?

dussias

Does a drunk driver steer himself at 100 mph into a tree? — TheMadFool

Yes?

Could you elaborate?

TheMadFool

Yes?

Could you elaborate — dussias

No control, no steering.

dussias

↪TheMadFool

Ah! Well, if we're talking about control and consciousness then I'd agree that not all instances have had someone steering the wheel. Makes me think about Hitler and Gandhi, though.

(By no means I'm saying that only emotions have been in control of the wheel, I'm just commenting that they have had their chance)

However, a hypnotist is trained to perceive the world as 90% irrational and 10% rational. What do you think of this?

Hippyhead

By characterizing a rational position, as an emotional position, the defender is trying to dismiss it without actually having to deal with it. — JerseyFlight

Philosophy forums are overwhelmingly driven by emotional agendas. Rational positions are typically a thin veneer fig leaf used to hide the emotional agenda from it's owner.

I know all this because the evidence and logical calculations clearly show that I am WAAAAY smarter than everyone else! :-)

Hippyhead

This page intentionally left blank — TheMadFool

The new empty headed religion is already spreading! Praise be The Prophet!

TheMadFool

Ah! Well, if we're talking about control and consciousness then I'd agree that not all instances have had someone steering the wheel. Makes me think about Hitler and Gandhi, though. — dussias

Why?

(By no means I'm saying that only emotions have been in control of the wheel, I'm just commenting that they have had their chance)

Who has had their chance?

However, a hypnotist is trained to perceive the world as 90% irrational and 10% rational. What do you think of this?

That they're probably on the right track insofar as understanding humans is concerned but the thing is irrationality isn't entirely attributable to emotion. Many people, myself included, aren't logicians and heck even logicians make mistakes.

TheMadFool

The new empty headed religion is already spreading! Praise be The Prophet! — Hippyhead

:smile:

Hippyhead

.

:smile: — TheMadFool

.

JerseyFlight

However, I strongly believe that who's at fault is not the emotional one! It's whoever lets itself take aim at emotions, rather than rationale. — dussias

This is not settled by your feelings, nor is it settled by mine. In the present context the fault lies with the person who is trying to evade criticism (the burden of proof) through the medium of emotion.

dussias

In the present context the fault lies with the person who is trying — JerseyFlight

Does fault imply decision or consciousness, then?

Are "emotional decisions" intentional?

JerseyFlight

Does fault imply decision or consciousness, then? — dussias

It doesn't matter. It matters for psychological reasons of explanation, but not for the present context. The present context seeks to uphold the integrity of intellectual standards above and beyond the regress (manipulation) of emotional states.

dussias

Uphold the integrity of intellectual standards above and beyond the regress (manipulation) of emotional states. — JerseyFlight

Apply scientific rigor to the discussion, then.

Pop

The unspoken claim is that "the objector's criticisms are false because they are based on emotion." But the most extraordinary thing is that those who are leveling this characterization are actually the ones making use of an emotional argument (or at the very least, a formal fallacy). — JerseyFlight

This is difficult, as only a philosophical zombie could argue unemotionally, but they wouldn't argue or do anything for that matter, as they would have no emotional impetus to do so.

Peer review and a forum such as this is useful precisely to test our emotionally underpinned ideas, against emotionally underpinned counter ideas. So conflict and emotional bias is unavoidable , in my opinion. But I think the better thinkers can rise above this to some extent, if not entirely.

JerseyFlight

This is difficult, as only a philosophical zombie could argue unemotionally, but they wouldn't argue or do anything for that matter, as they would have no emotional impetus to do so. — Pop

This is equivocates from the original point. The point is not that people must be free of emotion, but that emotional evasions are inappropriate responses to strong critical positions. One can be emotional, what one cannot do, is use that emotion as an argument against (or to evade) a valid criticism.

Pop

One can be emotional, what one cannot do, is use that emotion as an argument against (or to evade) a valid criticism. — JerseyFlight

I totally agree with and empathize with your position - but you can see the difficulty?

JerseyFlight

but you can see the difficulty? — Pop

Not really. Maybe if you explain more? I would only caution you to be mindful of equivocation in the sense of entering into another topic. Not that your topic would necessarily be invalid, but it might not make contact with the present position.

Pop

↪JerseyFlight

The difficulty, as I see it, is in separating emotion from reason.
Reasonable discussion requires a levelheadedness, which can not be experienced in times of high emotion.

JerseyFlight

The difficulty, as I see it, is in separating emotion from reason. — Pop

Good topic, but different from the one here.

Pop

↪JerseyFlight

I'll try again. A highly emotional state will illicit a highly emotional response. Not that it is a justified response, but it is a typically human response.

MSC

The difficulty, as I see it, is in separating emotion from reason.
— @Pop

Good topic, but different from the one here. — JerseyFlight

I think our emotion and reason are attached for a reason.

Desire is in emotion
I desire to reason about things.
I desire to reason about them because of emotions.
If I don't reason about things, I will always react with emotion
If I do reason about things, I can balance between reason and emotion.
Acts ultimately require emotions, like feeling motivated.
I desire to reason about things because I care about contributing to mankinds efforts to be reasonable, with itself and others.

As you said, not the topic here. Just thought I'd chime in.

JerseyFlight

A highly emotional state will illicit a highly emotional response. Not that it is a justified response, but it is a typically human response. — Pop

Yes, I agree with you. Further, this "affect regulation" capacity and origin has been studied at length by psychology. Super important area of knowledge.

Pop

Yes, I agree with you. Further, this "affect regulation" capacity and origin has been studied at length by psychology. Super important area of knowledge. — JerseyFlight

Yes it is . I have a philosophical take on it hereI would appreciate you opinion if you find the time.

Re the topic at hand. I don't know what can be done , other then instituting some rules of engagement or such. You are probably referring to a particular incident of which I am not aware. But I have been subject to such situations myself, so understand. If reason cannot prevail there is not much point being here.

I vote for reason.

JerseyFlight

other then instituting some rules of engagement or such. — Pop

I think the moderators just need to be aware of the fact that philosophy offends people because it refutes their positivity, and not seek to ban people merely because other people are getting emotional and offended. That is not a good enough reason. A skilled debater doesn't need to call people names, he can dislodge his opponent from the basis of his own premises. But this is enough, people get super emotional when this happens. They just can't believe it, and so they do the first thing that comes natural, try to demonize the person who is refuting them, to cast them in a negative light, as a villain, as a fiend, as a fanatic. Anything to sustain their denial and sense of identity which is attached to their belief.

I come from a school of hyper critical thinkers known as critical theory (not literary theory). They would walk circles around the philosophers on this forum, I am but a novice in this domain. Critical theorists are usually well read in three separate areas: Philosophy, Psychology and Social Theory, which often includes economics as well as aesthetics. Adorno, for example, was studying Kant at the age of 16 with a highly distinguished German professor. Critical theorists are the most skilled thinkers I have encountered because they are not limited to one sphere of thought, whereas, American Philosophers, most specifically, Analytical Philosophy, is massively insecure because it only knows how to navigate a very small world of suffocating abstraction. What is missing is dialectic, what is missing is an understanding of social systems. Because critical theorists have this expanded, dialectical comprehension, it makes them exceedingly skilled in the realm of polemics. If you look at Habermas, for example, his arguments range through every field, from Analytical Philosophy, to Continental Philosophy, Sociology, Linguistics, Law, Marxism and more. Critical theory is not one-sided, it's dialectical. One must learn very quickly how to pass through systems and arguments without getting caught up in emotion. It's not personal, it's just critical. The point is to arrive at a comprehension of contextualized value. One could even call it, a systemic value.

In Defense of the Defenders of Reason

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions