Address the reason why someone is attracted to it. — Isaac

To a bad idea? Any number of reasons. I dont follow why that answer challenges the assertion I made about discourse being the best remedy. Non-sequitor I would call it, but maybe Im missing something.
So do you have a superior remedy?

I dont follow why that answer challenges the assertion I made about discourse being the best remedy. Non-sequitor I would call it, but maybe Im missing something.
So do you have a superior remedy? — DingoJones

the point is that people, in the main, neither adopt nor reject ideas on the strength of rational argument. It's simply to easy to construct a rational argument to support too wide a range of possible ideas. By and large people adopt ideas as a kind of membership criteria for the social group they might wish to affirm their membership of, so if you want to change the ideas someone has you need to address the reasons why they're attracted to the social group which those ideas represent the membership criteria for.

Presenting a rational argument can help, of course, but only in that being able to muster rational support is an appealing characteristic of a social group. But it's only one appealing characteristic among many.

The point, I think, with the adoption of 'bad' ideas is that, the very fact that they lack rational support (they're 'bad' after all) is strongly indicative of the fact that people adopting them probably haven't done so because they were attracted to that characteristic. So appealing to them on those grounds is unlikely to succeed.

So your superior remedy is...?

So your superior remedy is...? — DingoJones

If writing it three times in three different ways isn't doing the job I think we're not going to make any more progress with a fourth.

I dont think you’ve been as clear as you think. Id rather not guess and then have it cause confusion later on, so im trying to get a concise answer.
So I guess you think membership into another group? Thats a superior remedy in your view?

So I guess you think membership into another group? Thats a superior remedy in your view? — DingoJones

I think what @Isaac is trying to say is that you are very unlikely to change someone's mind in a non-professional conversation (like an internet forum) just by making what you think are good arguments. If you want to change people's minds, you need to first figure out what context they formed their opinion in in the first place, and then try to give them a new context in which they can then come to new conclusions.

I think what Isaac is trying to say is that you are very unlikely to change someone's mind in a non-professional conversation (like an internet forum) just by making what you think are good arguments. If you want to change people's minds, you need to first figure out what context they formed their opinion in in the first place, and then try to give them a new context in which they can then come to new conclusions. — Echarmion

Ok, thanks.

So in what way would someone figure out that context and provide them with a new context if not through discourse. Amend that, what better way than discourse?

So in what way would someone figure out that context and provide them with a new context if not through discourse. Amend that, what better way than discourse? — DingoJones

Well, it's going to require communication (I suppose you could stalk them, figure out where they live and quietly gather information, but that's rather time-intensive). But it's a much different kind of conversation, because you wouldn't be trying to show them they're wrong via some logical syllogism or similar. I don't know whether I know any good strategy, but I suppose you'd be more focused on letting them talk and explain their view, and maybe adjacent views, and try to avoid to sound combative or dismissive. I have also heard it said that there is value to actually protesting and correcting false information immediately, because presenting people with evidence, especially if it involves people they respect, does have an effect in the long term.

I think what Isaac is trying to say is that you are very unlikely to change someone's mind in a non-professional conversation (like an internet forum) just by making what you think are good arguments. If you want to change people's minds, you need to first figure out what context they formed their opinion in in the first place, and then try to give them a new context in which they can then come to new conclusions. — Echarmion

Which doesn't work either. It's trivial to get a racist, for instance, to agree that such and such a deed or situation is regrettable: you'll see that here. Iirc I got NOS to agree that BLM aren't entirely unjustified pretty easily. Then they go to bed, go to that great reset button in the land of nighty-night, and come back reiterating the same shit as the day before. That's the problem with highly emotive irrational beliefs.

The purpose of engaging with someone with irrational and hateful beliefs is not to benefit them, in my opinion, but to leave no expression of such a belief unchallenged and unnamed.

The purpose of engaging with someone with irrational and hateful beliefs is not to benefit them, in my opinion, but to leave no expression of such a belief unchallenged and unnamed. — Kenosha Kid

And in doing so, aside from the rational pressure of your actual arguments against those beliefs, apply social and emotional pressure discouraging people from holding them. Both the person you're arguing against, but also, and perhaps more importantly, any undecided observers.

This connects back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread, about giving people support and letting them know they're not alone in their views. Feeling all alone applies an irrational social pressure. When I'm the only person arguing for one side of a disagreement, I can feel the irrational social pressure to just give up and agree with the others, a feeling like I'm a bad person for disagreeing with "everyone else", even if rationally I see no merit to their arguments.

About the only thing that props me up against that kind of social pressure is a much longer-ingrained social pressure that makes me feel like a bad person for not making decisions based entirely on their rational merit. So I feel like a bad person for being in a disagreement, but I'd feel just as much if not more like a bad person for caving to a bad argument in that disagreement, so I feel compelled to stand my ground and argue even if I'd really rather spend my time doing something else.

If it feels like there are others who will make my same points for me, or at least others who agree that the other side of the disagreement is wrong, then I don't feel social pressures at all -- I don't have to fight this fight, someone else will, or we can just be separate "tribes" and not be forced to engage -- and so I am more free to treat the discussion as a purely intellectual exercise, and make more reason-based decisions in it.

That's exactly why an important part of rhetoric is communicating to the audience that you are a good person who's on their side, trying to help them think through something, rather than attacking them. If they're in a social-conflict state of mind, they're not going to be open to reason. If they feel like they're among friends and figuring something out together, then they might be.

And in doing so, aside from the rational pressure of your actual arguments against those beliefs, apply social and emotional pressure discouraging people from holding them. Both the person you're arguing against, but also, and perhaps more importantly, any undecided observers. — Pfhorrest

For the latter, yes. The former... I wouldn't hold my breath. Or waste it, for that matter. I understand what you're saying and the same thought occurred to me. In a closed group, what is "wrong" is largely conditioned by what is unacceptable: that's why we have shame.

But this isn't a closed group or anything like it. What we see is tendrils encroaching from a long way away, an expansion from crazytown into more thoughtful, open-minded territory precisely because it is more thoughtful and open-minded. The dumb arguments that we see here pass for profundity elsewhere. Nothing happens if you snip those tendrils except that , with luck, they die here. Elsewhere they carry on.

Btw there are rational people who are just plain wrong. One of my best friends used to be a racist and a homophobe. Difference was he wanted to examine his beliefs and have those conversations. There was always a part of him that knew he was better than his upbringing, so he reached out. He didn't deny facts, never stood by a hypocritical position*, and wasn't illogical. The basic human decency I often speak of was obviously there beneath a veneer of bad culture. It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference. He didn't have a chip on his shoulder, for starters.

*I convinced him that homosexuality could be beautiful by inviting him to examine his own positive views on lesbian and anal porn. Look, I never said this was highbrow... it worked, that's all I'm saying.

Well i wasnt talking about specific kinds of discourse. Obviously there are going to be better or worse forms by of it. If you are just yelling at them and not listening you wont make much headway. So maybe I should amend my claim to “good discourse is the best remedy for bad ideas.”

It wasn't suicide by mod but a stupid mistake (you can read up in the Bannings thread). It was a combination of an apology, the assurances after the ban it wouldn't happen again and his otherwise good posting history that led to an unban. Suicidees by mod tend to not want to get back to the forum. ;-) — Benkei

:up:

Might be traumatic brain injuries (a lot of that going around lately) that causes would-be philosophers to get thick as a brick and kill themselves by Mod. You know, too much social media trauma, too many Trump tweets, too much doom scrolling, too many things for sale on line, heat stress from global warming (even in the dead of winter), too many choices on Netflix, and so on.

I don't know. I read somewhere that people are stupid. Seems like as good an explanation as any.

Forums like this are open to the public; some of the walking wounded are attracted to forums because they are warm and dry, and there might be snacks offered (where are our snacks? I've been waiting for years.).

↪DingoJones Might be traumatic brain injuries (a lot of that going around lately) that causes would-be philosophers to get thick as a brick and kill themselves by Mod. You know, too much social media trauma, too many Trump tweets, too much doom scrolling, too many things for sale on line, heat stress from global warming (even in the dead of winter), too many choices on Netflix, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I intended to include those things under “a sign of the times”. Social media and fear based news are big parts of it in the general public but I thought there might be something specific to this forum. Perhaps suicide by mod is one of the ways those with a philosophical bent express that stress.

If this is a sign of the times, then are we experiencing a flare up of tribalism, a tribalism growth spurt of some kind? — DingoJones

This is not only a human tendency, but something that a few people - most of the time, the intellectual minority - consciously decide to adopt as a tactic of power. This extremism, polarity, division, etc ... in today's society - more precisely, in the West - has happened in history at least once in the past - that we have records of -.

During the third and fourth centuries AD in the Roman civilization, it was noticeable the slow death of neutrality and intellectual freedom of individuals due to the cultural and moral decay that had been afflicting society. The most renowned philosophical groups in Greece - such as the Stoics, for example - began to fragment more and more thanks to the no longer homogeneous metaphysics they were discussing. Ha, even Plotinus, one of the most prestigious thinkers of the age, said - through the records of one of his disciples, Porphyry -:

"Philosophers, intellectuals, and Romans, are only those who look to the future like us"

This return to the most basic and rustic values ​​and principles is only the result of the development of centuries of prosperity and wealth - again, in the West -.

What some would call "apocalyptic thoughts", I see only as the wisdom of the studying of history. We are already headed for a new Dark Ages, it is only a matter of time before our Rome falls.

As Nietzsche already said in the 1800s:

"The question is no longer how to get out of the abyss, but if you want to fall into it, in hopelessness, or dancing."

How do you imagine the “new Dark Ages” looking in thrse modern times?

"those with a philosophical bent" will be as affected by over-exposure to social media as anyone. Take a less well known social media app, "NextDoor", an app I recently started using. It's tailored to serve neighborhoods. In one way it's like Craig's List (selling used stuff) but in another way it's like a running crime report. Many mugging, gunshots, hovering helicopters, lost dogs, carjackings, catalytic converter thefts, break-ins, fire crackers, "suspicious persons, cars", stray cats, so forth are posted and discussed. Crime is up (according to the police), but regularly reading NextDoor would lead one to feel the city was turning into a living nightmare.

All of this stuff has been going on for decades, but NextDoor hasn't been around all that long to report it with excruciating frequency.

It's been suspected, if not known for certain, that people who watch a lot of commercial TV newscasts think the world is a far more dangerous place than it actually is. Add Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, and all the rest--anyone (even those with a philosophical bent) who 'consumes' that content is going to be negatively affected.

Plus, there's a fair amount of disputatious talk here. Philosophically bent person A says one thing, and philosophically bent person B slams them. Philosophically twisted person C chimes in, and philosophically twisted person D is torqued out. Philosophical suicide follows. The philosophically walking wounded die in the streets.

What kind of world are you living in if you cannot see the deep chaos into which humanity is descending?

Our dark age will be the result of an inability to materially sustain our culture, decayed or not. I predict a "dark age" ahead, but "extremism, polarity, division, cultural and/or moral decay" and so on will be the result of environmental collapse, not the cause.

You know that many historians have stopped using the term "dark age" because it just wasn't that dark. Certainly, the empire was over; the benefits of empire began to disappear, but resilient people were busy with their lives, and were (advertently and accidentally) developing new culture. True, the Roman establishment in Britain decamped, but that doesn't mean that the newly arrived Angles and Saxons were in a depressed funk about it.

How do you imagine the “new Dark Ages” looking in thrse modern times? — DingoJones

Honestly, Roman civilization is a reflection of ours in everything but technology. What, during the fall of Rome, was used as a justification, means and end - Christianity - in our time, will be ideologies in its place- most likely what we now call Communism and Capitalism (?) - I am in doubt about the second term - -. Symbology and subjective absolutism will be the rule of this new Dark Age intelect, just as it was during the 6th to 9th centuries - ex: The Germanic kings who conquered Western Europe, were blatantly hypocritical in the fact that they called themselves Christians and virtuous but they were anything but Christian and virtuous, but to maintain their power bases, they had to symbolically represent what they weren't -.

I do not believe that we will have monarchies again, but dictatorial regimes transvested as republics. This, I can say with certainty - as in a letter between Pepin I - Charlemagne's father - and the Byzantine Emperor, where they discussed the lands of the pontifical state, the Roman State was still called as the "Holy, Divine, Blessed by God and Jesus Christ, Republic of the Romans" - this already at the height of the Dark Ages - 8th century - -.

If a scenario you want to imagine, imagine the largest and most "civilized" cities in the western world today, but completely overwhelmed by the rot of nihilism. Garbage tossed all over the place, hypocritical graffiti on each wall, rubble of ruined structures, an illiterate population who, being ignorant, will live in this environment as if it were the best in the world. A population, which had created new languages ​​thanks to its ignorance of language norms; who talked through slangs - as the romance languages ​​were born from vulgar Latin -.

I'm just not sure yet if we are living on the edge of this scenario, or if we still live during the degeneration of Rome. The plague has already occurred, but not yet the war. Only time will tell.

But one thing is certain:

"Those who are being lynched today, will be worshiped as saints in this future society."

You know that many historians have stopped using the term "dark age" because it just wasn't that dark. Certainly, the empire was over; the benefits of empire began to disappear, but resilient people were busy with their lives, and were (advertently and accidentally) developing new culture. True, the Roman establishment in Britain decamped, but that doesn't mean that the newly arrived Angles and Saxons were in a depressed funk about it. — Bitter Crank

There is no denying that the period between 476 AD - fall of Rome - until the year 1000 AD were centuries of technological and cultural regression. Just the fact that we consider that during the 15th century we had a "renaissance" already disproves this hypothesis that the period was not obscure. The point that I defend is that from 476 to 1000, the term "Dark Ages" is fair and valid because it was the period when everyone - no one excluded - tried to imitate the glory and light of ancient Rome. After the year 1000, it is much more visible that Europe had already developed a culture capable of overcoming the resentment that had overtaken the society in question to Rome, and it is not by chance that it is only after the year 1000 AD that we have a new noticeable technological progress and moral advancement of Christian Europe.

To compare the Frankish society - for example - that invaded and conquered Roman Gaul, with the Roman society that previously existed there, is to belittle and diminish the advances and achievements of the Romans.

What you are saying is very important. I am glad that you have placed it here because at least it cannot be ignored. I have been trying to engage in discussion about the present state of of the world, during the last week, but I don't think many people are interested. So, I hope that a lot of people read and take on board what you are saying.

What you are saying is very important. I am glad that you have placed it here because at least it cannot be ignored. I have been trying to engage in discussion about the present state of of the world during the last week but I don't think many people are interested. So, I hope that a lot of people read and take on board what you are saying. — Jack Cummins

People, when given freedom, tend not to discuss what bothers them. Currently, not even the possibility of discussing what bothers them is being respected. Perhaps for this and other reasons - such as ignorance, deliberately hiding facts, etc ... - these discussions are decreasing more and more.

In question to Rome compared to the current West. I believe that the collapse will not be single, but double - thanks to the now "double west" - the Americas and Europe - -.

The most likely scenario to the collapse is one where Western Europe collapses and the United States fragment. Two Romes in this case, double the fall, twice as much chaos, twice as dark.

Perhaps people are worried really and that makes them avoidant. I guess we all use escape mechanisms. Sometimes I start to write posts and begin to alter them because I think they are going to be grim to read. I also fluctuate in terms of how pessimistic or optimistic I feel about what is going on.

You frame the whole picture well in its historical context too. I suppose we also see the picture differently based on where we are based geographically and what portrayals we are given in the media.

But it does indeed seem that so much is fragmenting and that is why you were able to slot it into this thread. Anyway, I will log off and go to bed now, so goodnight and I hope that people take an interest in what you have written.

What kind of world are you living in if you cannot see the deep chaos into which humanity is descending? — Jack Cummins

Im not sure what you are referencing, where did I give that impression?

I see. So more like a cultural dark ages rather than some sort of apocalyptic reset?

I see. So more like a cultural dark ages rather than some sort of apocalyptic reset? — DingoJones

It will probably be a gradual degeneration of culture and technology. I don't believe it will be a complete and revolutionary collapse - as was the Bronze Age Collapse -.

However, what lasts longer, has much more time to make suffer...

Hey, Gus and Jack: I'm pretty pessimistic about our collective future. Cultural collapse, dark age, environmental catastrophe -- similar consequences. End of humanity? Probably not, but far fewer of us, and if the collapse is pervasive and lasts long enough for critical expertise to be lost, then the way forward will be long and difficult.

Gus: I'd never underesteem the Roman Empire. The end of the Roman Empire significantly degraded (even if it did not totally end) trade in food, metals, fabric, people, and knowledge. Technology was lost (dome and aqueduct building, organizational practices, scientific and technological knowledge such as it was, and so on. There were extensive and long term consequences from that loss. What were integrated parts of the western empire became islands. The priorities, biases, and intentions of the Roman Church also had extensive long-lasting consequences for Western Culture.

The people alive in MMXXI perhaps experience some of the same disquiet, unease, confusion, and anxiety people did in CDL Rome. "Things are falling apart; the center is not holding." The best seem to lack passionate conviction, and the worst have Twitter accounts which they use with a vengeance.

The people alive in MMXXI perhaps experience some of the same disquiet, unease, confusion, and anxiety people did in CDL Rome. "Things are falling apart; the center is not holding." The best seem to lack passionate conviction, and the worst have Twitter accounts which they use with a vengeance. — Bitter Crank

I would still affirm that the masses have no idea that their routine lives are about to collapse. Do not underestimate the people, they are much more ignorant than they seem.

Rome collapsed, and I doubt that the mundane plebe was aware of the fact. And even if they were, it did not change much on their lifes - as the reforms of Diocletian in 285 AD had already practically established serfdom and what we now call as "Feudalism" in the Roman Empire more than 200 years before its fall -.