Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The other thing I meant to mention with regard to the OP is that those who do not understand the complexity of psychological assent will become impatient. "Why haven't they changed their mind in the 20 minutes we've been talking?!" People never change their minds quickly, regardless of their intelligence. In fact it is an enormously complex and timebound process for someone to shift one of their fundamental positions. Once you know that you stop banging your head against the wall with impatience.Consider why so few people are ever inclined to admit they were wrong when proven so in these spaces.
This is true for more than just religious believers. Though when a particular metaphysical belief is routinely treated as naive interpretation within a culture its proponants are often blind to the nature of their belief and think its just how things are.Many religious arguments get hung up on a distinction between knowing and believing which is tricky. A believer of a particular religion may say they know something to be true....and a believer of another religion or disbeliever is fair in examing the method by which one arrived at knowledge and not merely belief.
"Black legend"? No, not familiar.
"Embarrassment of riches"? Yes, I've heard of it.
Have you heard of Bilbo Baggins and his encounter with Smaug at Lonely Mountain? [I mean this tongue in cheek-------]
Yes, you're right, and it's this very reason I fled from my immersion in commercial design and adverstising as a youth in high school.
Why would you be inclined to assume that I've never considered this already, many times, Ana?
Actually, these days, the problem isn't that no one is right about everything. This is conspicuously obvious, self-evident. If you look in my track history here on CF alone, you'll see that it's my beginning axiom.
No, the problem is that these days, no one cares what truth, history or reality are. No, people want appeased feelings.
And as the Queen song says, "They want all, and they want it now!"
Yes, Goebbles. And it was also Bonhoeffer who said, "Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than evil.”
Yeah. I've read Wittgenstein and studied way too much history and philosophy. I know the game is rigged. I can't win.
Have you ever read the book of Revelation slowly and carefully?
Yes, and unfortunately, on this point, you are absolutely correct.
Could be all of the above, all at once, and then some?
You speak wisdom on this point. I can't deny that.
This is true for more than just religious believers.
Though when a particular metaphysical belief is routinely treated as naive interpretation within a culture its proponants are often blind to the nature of their belief and think its just how things are.
It's rare that people take the time to try to sort out the problems that epistemics quickly must deal with. At some point we just have to accept a starting point and pray it's the right one.
That's interesting. I genuinely hadn't yet run into this term in my Historiographical studies. I'll have to file it away as a foil for studying the historical effects of countercultural propaganda and stereotyping. Thanks for sharing it.
This is a suggested historical exaggeration of cruelty of Spanish conquest at the height of it's empire.
Only if those around me start thinking they really are defined by the term, "Proletariat." At least, that's my theoretical, knee-jerk assessment.Quite literally, the notion that having more than those around you can become a source of embarrassment.
There are people out there who, like Smaug, think their positions and views of the world are unassailable.I thought awhile back that perhaps there exists in people who believe in their superiority so strongly or for so long that they no longer feel they could validly criticize anyone but themselves or perhaps those of similar identity....and end up biased against themselves.
I bet you have an interesting story to tell.The two examples are possible manifestations.
Hey, I did the same when I turned down the Washington internship. Honestly, 10k to go work for free in Washington? Imagine me being enthusiastic to go pretend to be charming to a pack of snakes for vague unwritten promises....and then imagine telling me that I get to pay for the privilege lol.
Yes, you're right. The sense of certainty a number of people have seems to run strongly in various political streams. On some level, I fully realize the troubles they've seen in life contribute to their feelings about when and where and how the pain of the world should be alleviated. Reasonableness in the face of life's frustrations is a difficult thing to achieve. Reasonableness itself, with the sobriety that it nurtures, isn't a common thing to acquire, and I think we both know this can be the case even when the chips do fall in one's own favor.If that were the case I think the lies they're fed would suffice.
When I see extreme polarization on not only worldviews but on methodology.....
I see an unhealthy certainty. If not...doubt masked as certainty.
Of course that's the case. Christians have known----or should have known-----this would typically be the case at least since the time Paul strode atop Mars Hill in Athens and dared to drop a syllable or two.See? Common ground...even amongst polar opposites.
The point being...when you try to speak to the very smart, you at best only get a few listeners.
For me, "winning" is when someone actually listens and considers. As I told a person over on another thread, the goal of interlocution isn't really about being the champ in a debate. It's about persuading another person to not only take into account some valid information you have, but to begin to loosen their grip on the ideas that they themselves have held so dearly as "truth."....what would winning look like here?
I'd ask, "And what did you see??," but I'm not wanting to take this thread down a less than useful tangent.Yes. Come and see.
I try not to overcomplicate explanations but....I can come up with a lot. I don't even need to attribute any malice. No grand schemes. No deliberate malignant efforts.
As long as you can sufficiently convince your enemies that you're on their side...nobody needs to ever fear the red tide of violence.
Consider why so few people are ever inclined to admit they were wrong when proven so in these spaces.
Is it because they genuinely don't believe they are wrong? I don't think so....I've run too many arguments into the ground to believe that. Nope. The stakes are very low. Nobody is face to face. Nobody is held accountable. Why admit you are wrong just because someone proved it if you can come back later on a different thread and make the same argument again....and hope for better results?
The positions people take tend to reflect some inner belief of themselves. It could be "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a supporter of X" or "I'm smart and know what I'm talking about".
In all cases...to admit error becomes a little blow to one's ego. If you are effectively anonymous and nobody can point out how badly your argument failed the last time you made it....why not simply make it again?
And who enjoys learning who is more intelligent than themselves? I can either accept my limitations or become bitter towards someone who knows more. I'm 100% certain @2PhiloVoid you know more philosophy than I. It's not likely to be close. If it is...you've fooled me entirely. I know another poster who understands computer programming better than I. I know another who definitely knows physics better than I.
I don't challenge you on any philosophical subject that I don't think I can...and I understand where my argument ends typically before I'd even bother.
But if we were discussing the facts of which philosopher said what....I'm far more confident in 98% of your answers than mine.
The other thing I meant to mention with regard to the OP is that those who do not understand the complexity of psychological assent will become impatient. "Why haven't they changed their mind in the 20 minutes we've been talking?!" People never change their minds quickly, regardless of their intelligence. In fact it is an enormously complex and timebound process for someone to shift one of their fundamental positions. Once you know that you stop banging your head against the wall with impatience.
Discussing fallacies is rarely going to make for profitable conversation, particularly attempting to highlight the fallacies of those who argue against us. Rhetoric is far more important in understanding discourse than logic, with the more profitable angle being to discuss the ethos and pathos, and leaving critical appraisal of the logos to our own and not our opponents.
Discussing fallacies is rarely going to make for profitable conversation, particularly attempting to highlight the fallacies of those who argue against us. Rhetoric is far more important in understanding discourse than logic, with the more profitable angle being to discuss the ethos and pathos, and leaving critical appraisal of the logos to our own and not our opponents.
And who enjoys learning who is more intelligent than themselves? I can either accept my limitations or become bitter towards someone who knows more.
That's interesting. I genuinely hadn't yet run into this term in my Historiographical studies. I'll have to file it away as a foil for studying the historical effects of countercultural propaganda and stereotyping. Thanks for sharing it.
Only if those around me start thinking they really are defined by the term, "Proletariat." At least, that's my theoretical, knee-jerk assessment.
There are people out there who, like Smaug, think their positions and views of the world are unassailable.
Some of those folks hold the certainty that they because ........ well, they're smart in one way or another.
And, sadly, others hold to their certainty because they're in need of the services of a good psychiatrist.
I bet you have an interesting story to tell.
Yes, you're right. The sense of certainty a number of people have seems to run strongly in various political streams. On some level, I fully realize the troubles they've seen in life contribute to their feelings about when and where and how the pain of the world should be alleviated. Reasonableness in the face of life's frustrations is a difficult thing to achieve. Reasonableness itself, with the sobriety that it nurtures, isn't a common thing to acquire, and I think we both know this can be the case even when the chips do fall in one's own favor.
Of course that's the case. Christians have known----or should have known-----this would typically be the case at least since the time Paul strode atop Mars Hill in Athens and dared to drop a syllable or two.
For me, "winning" is when someone actually listens and considers.
I'd ask, "And what did you see??," but I'm not wanting to take this thread down a less than useful tangent.
THESE DAYS, I'm constantly asking myself: what does it actually take to convince those who consider themselves to be my enemy that I'm working for their well-being?
I've found that the answer to this is that there's "something else going on and building in the world," something that no amount of student management classes at the universities, and no amount of books or textbooks on the psychology of human motivation, can actually account for and teach even teachers in the public realm how to compensate.
No, I think the world is finally becoming so complicated in the midst of its electronic unification that the old "factory" mentality of education can no longer manage the case load and no amount of "constructivist" models of education will be able to compensate.
Methodology can only take us so far. There's still an insurmountable gulf of things our methodical approaches can't investigate by the nature of the methodsSure...I wouldn't overuse it though.. Only when you don't understand the method in some significant way...not merely lack knowledge of the topic.
Yes, though typically morals and emotions are far more central than raw data.I'm sure you can understand that though...we all can't see whatever we can't see.
Seems to me it's not possible to have a loose grasp on the sorts of assumptions we're talking about, since they dictate what methods of inquiry we deem reliable for getting at truth. Or should I say Truth. Denying some of the assumptions would lead to silly questions like whether or not the truth of A=A is a matter of definition or a basic fact of reality.Sure. If the concern is truth...don't cling too tightly to that starting point in case you need to let it go. If the concern is satisfaction or happiness....cling to it tightly and don't let it go.
I agree there is value in working through various definitions, but the issue with dealing with logical structures and various aspects of fallacious reasoning is the true appeal of those kinds of arguments isn't in the logos, but in the pathos. We are far more often convinced by emotion rather than argumentation, and reason is far more often used how a lawyer would in defending a position than how a detective would looking for a solution. If it becomes about the logical structures, the argument is bound to end up unproductive. Posturing and tactics are far more beneficial, and wisdom is far more advantageous than knowledge.Yes, and I think C.S. Lewis generally agreed with your basic premise here about the use of rhetoric. I also know of another scholar whom I spoke with a decade ago who mirrored your point as well.
The thing is, rhetoric, like many other words, needs to have its various denotations and actual uses laid out for everyone to see and compare. It's one thing to hear rhetoric used in the hands of a virtuous and noble person; it's another when in the hands of a devil.
And I'll never be able to throw enough ad hominems at a devil....................
I agree there is value in working through various definitions, but the issue with dealing with logical structures and various aspects of fallacious reasoning is the true appeal of those kinds of arguments isn't in the logos, but in the pathos. We are far more often convinced by emotion rather than argumentation, and reason is far more often used how a lawyer would in defending a position than how a detective would looking for a solution. If it becomes about the logical structures, the argument is bound to end up unproductive. Posturing and tactics are far more beneficial, and wisdom is far more advantageous than knowledge.
There's definitely variation, but I meant only to speak generally. Though I do see how it wouldn't come across that way, at any rate the art of persuasion extends beyond the rational elements involved. And as far as logos goes, it would seem to me the challenge there is that many are convinced that it is the logos they are concerned with but it is far more often a matter of pathos as echo chambers are sought out to add to the sense that what people believe "logically" is simply self-evident truth and anyone who believes anything else must be deluding themselves in some form or fashion. When an idea is popular, its popularity tends to be what most are persuaded by. It seems to me most people are lead by pathos, and their notions of ethos and logos flow from how the arguments feel to them rather than anything in the credentials or reasoning abilities involved.I disagree. I think it's different strokes for different folks. Some like Pathos. Some prioritize Ethos. And some rely upon Logos.
The other thing I meant to mention with regard to the OP is that those who do not understand the complexity of psychological assent will become impatient. "Why haven't they changed their mind in the 20 minutes we've been talking?!"
People never change their minds quickly, regardless of their intelligence.
In fact it is an enormously complex and timebound process for someone to shift one of their fundamental positions. Once you know that you stop banging your head against the wall with impatience.
I disagree. I think it's different strokes for different folks. Some like Pathos. Some prioritize Ethos. And some rely upon Logos.
And I hate to say this, but it's a character flaw that I have: I really, really, really don't like people who have "zeal without knowledge."
I also disagree. Wisdom is about logos. Rhetoric (in the best sense) is primarily about logos. Prioritizing rhetoric, ethos, pathos, "posturing," or "tactics" at the expense of logos looks to be a form of sophistry. Logos must form the foundation.I agree there is value in working through various definitions, but the issue with dealing with logical structures and various aspects of fallacious reasoning is the true appeal of those kinds of arguments isn't in the logos, but in the pathos. We are far more often convinced by emotion rather than argumentation, and reason is far more often used how a lawyer would in defending a position than how a detective would looking for a solution. If it becomes about the logical structures, the argument is bound to end up unproductive. Posturing and tactics are far more beneficial, and wisdom is far more advantageous than knowledge.
It's nothing more than recognizing that we are more than rational creatures. Debate and discussion is almost never won on the strength of the arguments. Wisdom is about knowing how to apply common ground, which is where any dispute over logos has to start. And common ground is dependent on pathos and ethos. We can play pretend and act as if our positions are purely intellectual, but they're not. Our emotions move us as often, if not more often, as logical constructs. We can't begin to discuss logos until we have locked in our ethos, and recognized the role of pathos in any discussion.I also disagree. Wisdom is about logos. Rhetoric (in the best sense) is primarily about logos. Prioritizing rhetoric, ethos, pathos, "posturing," or "tactics" at the expense of logos looks to be a form of sophistry. Logos must form the foundation.
Seems to me it's not possible to have a loose grasp on the sorts of assumptions we're talking about, since they dictate what methods of inquiry we deem reliable for getting at truth.
I also disagree. Wisdom is about logos. Rhetoric (in the best sense) is primarily about logos. Prioritizing rhetoric, ethos, pathos, "posturing," or "tactics" at the expense of logos looks to be a form of sophistry. Logos must form the foundation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?