Philosophy and Morality

[Ledifni]

Oh please. Ain't nothing deep about the things being discussed on this board. Ya'll start trying to get all deep and theoretical when absolute truth isn't what you want it to be.

You know, I find that when someone objects to an argument on the grounds, "It's too complicated/philosophical/overwritten/whatever," what they actually mean is, "I can't understand that well enough to argue against it, so will you just shut up already and accept that I'm right?" An argument that uses big words simply for the sake of confusing the audience is quite simple to spot, refute, and discard without resorting to such cop-outs as "I can't understand it," and so there is no reason to ever call someone's argument false or invalid because they used big words.

In other words, I'm saying that you want us to stop being "all deep and theoretical" and instead accept that absolute truth is what you want it to be, because you've seen how effective a cogent philosophical argument can be and you don't want us to "confuse" your potential proselytes away from "the Truth." If I'm mistaken and you're not trying to cop-out like this, then the only possible conclusion is that you're simply too lazy to bother to understand anyone else.

EDIT: Reading the rest of the thread, I find that this is precisely what you mean, as evidenced by the following statement:

You do understand that is why it's done, right? It's a debating technique. Wow them with a bunch of stuff that sounds scientific and official, and cite references of people saying the same thing, and it will convince the hearer of what is being said even if it does contradict what God says.

 

[Ledifni]

...

 

[Spyr]

Why can't people speak the way they want to? If someone finds it easier and more thorough to use big words then let them. If everyone spoke in laymans terms then we'd have someone posting a thread asking why we don't speak more scientifically. Seems to me this is a waste of time for the most part. Sure some people use those big, hard words in order to confuse people but then why even worry about it? Either look it up or ignore it. Frankly I find when people use more common terms rather than words that leave little room for error there is a great chance for misunderstanding. But I could very well be wrong.

 

[Zaac]

You know, I find that when someone objects to an argument on the grounds, "It's too complicated/philosophical/overwritten/whatever," what they actually mean is, "I can't understand that well enough to argue against it, so will you just shut up already and accept that I'm right?"

Let me suggest that reevaluate. Believe me when I tell ya that there ain't much that I find too complicated and I say that in all humbleness. You know what God says about such things? 14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 2 Timothy 2:14-16


I'm just wondering why people who want to carry on a conversation start talking like that, because as soon as you do, you lose the interest of everybody with the exception of that one person who wants to show you that he is just as erudite and well versed as you think you are. People come back and look at those threads and just start shaking their heads.

An argument that uses big words simply for the sake of confusing the audience is quite simple to spot, refute, and discard without resorting to such cop-outs as "I can't understand it," and so there is no reason to ever call someone's argument false or invalid because they used big words.

Who said it was false or invalid? I'm saying it's pretentious and defeats the purpose of having a discussion in an open forum because you to understand half of the stuff being talked about would take a member of Mensa.

In other words, I'm saying that you want us to stop being "all deep and theoretical" and instead accept that absolute truth is what you want it to be, because you've seen how effective a cogent philosophical argument can be and you don't want us to "confuse" your potential proselytes away from "the Truth." If I'm mistaken and you're not trying to cop-out like this, then the only possible conclusion is that you're simply too lazy to bother to understand anyone else.

Like I said, I don't have any problem understanding much of anything. I'm just wondering who ya'll think you're impressing with that stuff? Everyday people don't want to hear about this stuff ya'll have learned in Philosophy 101. They don't want to know about these models and all this other scientific stuff unless you can present in a manner that they can understand. Thing is, ya'll get so busy trying to impress folks with your knowledge of -ologies, that you completely miss that ain't nobody talking except the two folks arguing.

 

[Zaac]

Why can't people speak the way they want to? If someone finds it easier and more thorough to use big words then let them.

Who said they could not?

If everyone spoke in laymans terms then we'd have someone posting a thread asking why we don't speak more scientifically.

Not the point. The point is that it's a general forum and there seems to be forums on this site in which people can get down right scientific and shaggedly supercilious and sapient as they would like to be. Why water down the general forum just because people want the world to know they have a vocabulary and a little schooling?

Seems to me this is a waste of time for the most part. Sure some people use those big, hard words in order to confuse people but then why even worry about it? Either look it up or ignore it.

Oh I don't worry about it. I just skip it just like most everyone else does. But I'm sure there are plenty of folks who may have been posting to a thread and that kind of talk starts and they just give up on commenting again.

Frankly I find when people use more common terms rather than words that leave little room for error there is a great chance for misunderstanding. But I could very well be wrong.

It's just a matter of knowing how to get a thought across.

 

[Shane Roach]

If one studies rhetoric, you find that the idea of using simple and direct language is indeed a big part of properly presenting an argument.

The reason you don't see a lot of that here is that most the people here (myself included) are not educated in rhetoric.

My two cents.

 

[nadroj1985]

I'm just wondering why people who want to carry on a conversation start talking like that, because as soon as you do, you lose the interest of everybody with the exception of that one person who wants to show you that he is just as erudite and well versed as you think you are. People come back and look at those threads and just start shaking their heads.

No. Perhaps you do, and are projecting that reaction onto everyone else. But that is not the only reaction. Your posts display your continuing inability to understand the one point those of us who disagree with you have made -- that some topics are not reducible to simple, layman's terms. Some topics require their own (sometimes confusing) terminology. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Everyday people don't want to hear about this stuff ya'll have learned in Philosophy 101. They don't want to know about these models and all this other scientific stuff unless you can present in a manner that they can understand.

The answer to this is that some topics are not meant for "everyday people" to understand, in the same way that the average person is incapable of understanding an advanced mathematical topic. Really advanced philosophy, like really advanced mathematics or really advanced anything else, cannot be for everyman. To put it into everyman's language is to commit an injustice to the subject one is discussing; it is to oversimplify it to the point of invalidating it.

 

[gig]

[size=-1]one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish ...

sorry ... just needed to clear my head ...

If various levels of understanding exist, then various levels of communication best address those levels of understanding. Unless there is an exclusionary policy on CF for certain levels of understanding, then perhaps parallel threads on the same subject can exist in harmony, without offending anyone's philosophy of communication.

Words are important. Precision is a blessing. Both should be used when possible!*

gig
(*excerpts from "Gig 101", a 900,000-word discourse on something...)
[/size]

 

[Ledifni]

Let me suggest that reevaluate. Believe me when I tell ya that there ain't much that I find too complicated and I say that in all humbleness. You know what God says about such things? 14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 2 Timothy 2:14-16

I am not a Christian. I don't know why you quote the Bible at me as if it would have any effect on me.

I'm just wondering why people who want to carry on a conversation start talking like that, because as soon as you do, you lose the interest of everybody with the exception of that one person who wants to show you that he is just as erudite and well versed as you think you are. People come back and look at those threads and just start shaking their heads.

Well, Zaac, when I'm trying to have a constructive debate, I find it fairly pointless to hold it with people who have no idea what I'm talking about. Therefore, dumbing down my language to allow the uneducated to debate with me about matters that require education is a waste of time, don't you think? I prefer to speak clearly, knowing that anyone who is educated or cares to be will understand me, than speak simplistically so that people can interject misinformed opinions without being put off by technical language.

If you don't know the material, learn it. Don't ask those who do to dumb down their language so you can debate without having to learn anything first.

Who said it was false or invalid? I'm saying it's pretentious and defeats the purpose of having a discussion in an open forum because you to understand half of the stuff being talked about would take a member of Mensa.

I'm not a member of Mensa. I'd also venture to guess that very few of the people you're accusing of using unnecessarily complicated language are members of Mensa. In fact, I'd say that most of these people are simply people with a college education, who bothered to remember what they learned in college and are now discussing it. If others don't have that education and can't follow the conversation, then I suggest that they learn what they need to know or stay out of those discussions.

 

[Zaac]

I am not a Christian. I don't know why you quote the Bible at me as if it would have any effect on me.

It had enough of an effect on you that you recognize that it's from the Bible.

Well, Zaac, when I'm trying to have a constructive debate, I find it fairly pointless to hold it with people who have no idea what I'm talking about. Therefore, dumbing down my language to allow the uneducated to debate with me about matters that require education is a waste of time, don't you think?

Sheer vanity, but that goes with not being a Christian.

I prefer to speak clearly, knowing that anyone who is educated or cares to be will understand me, than speak simplistically so that people can interject misinformed opinions without being put off by technical language.

You prefer to speak in a way that says you know you're more intelligent than the rest of the folks who started the conversation. And because you can use some silly modalities to make your point, everybody else is misinformed because they don't want to waste their time dealing with folks who speak as though everyone is in a Ph. D program .

But don't get me wrong. There is nothing complicated about anything you've said. You've just chosen to use words that make it appear to be complicated. And that's all about your ego.

If I wanted to, I could explain the laws of thermodynamics to a six year in such a way that he could understand it. You on the other hand seem to be intent on making yourself right by getting the last word as the result of no one caring enough to take the time decipher what you have said.

If you don't know the material, learn it. Don't ask those who do to dumb down their language so you can debate without having to learn anything first.

Hey, you do you. As I said, it's a general forum. It would be nice if you would talk in such a way that everybody can be in on the discussion.

I'm not a member of Mensa. I'd also venture to guess that very few of the people you're accusing of using unnecessarily complicated language are members of Mensa.

Oh stop. Put your girdle back on. It wasn't meant that way at all.

[quoteIn fact, I'd say that most of these people are simply people with a college education, who bothered to remember what they learned in college and are now discussing it. If others don't have that education and can't follow the conversation, then I suggest that they learn what they need to know or stay out of those discussions.[/QUOTE]


That's a nice suggestion...if you started the conversation. But should that be the case when you didn't?

 

[Zaac]

No. Perhaps you do, and are projecting that reaction onto everyone else. But that is not the only reaction. Your posts display your continuing inability to understand the one point those of us who disagree with you have made -- that some topics are not reducible to simple, layman's terms. Some topics require their own (sometimes confusing) terminology. It sucks, but that's the way it is.[/quote

Then perhaps you're too smart for your own good, because it can be reduced to layman's terms.

[quoteThe answer to this is that some topics are not meant for "everyday people" to understand, in the same way that the average person is incapable of understanding an advanced mathematical topic.

Have we been discussing an advanced mathematics topic? And if we were, the basis of it would still be adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.

Really advanced philosophy, like really advanced mathematics or really advanced anything else, cannot be for everyman.

Sure it can. That's just a lie that all that schooling has convinced ya'll of. People don't suddenly become learned just because they go to college. There are plenty of Joe blows on the street who never go to school who can hold a conversation with you about advanced mathematiccs and philosophy and break it down so that the bag lady on the corner can understand it.

True understanding is measured by how you can teach the concepts to others, not by how much you can show that you know.

To put it into everyman's language is to commit an injustice to the subject one is discussing; it is to oversimplify it to the point of invalidating it.

Again, vanity.

 

[Ledifni]

It had enough of an effect on you that you recognize that it's from the Bible.

Yes, I recognize it because I know large portions of the Bible by heart. I was a Christian too, you know.

Sheer vanity, but that goes with not being a Christian.

I find it deliciously ironic that you would use the statement above to accuse me of vanity

You prefer to speak in a way that says you know you're more intelligent than the rest of the folks who started the conversation. And because you can use some silly modalities to make your point, everybody else is misinformed because they don't want to waste their time dealing with folks who speak as though everyone is in a Ph. D program.

But don't get me wrong. There is nothing complicated about anything you've said. You've just chosen to use words that make it appear to be complicated. And that's all about your ego.

This conversation is easily within a high-school reading level. When I use big words, it's in conversations that really matter, not in discussions about how I'm a meanie for using big words.

If I wanted to, I could explain the laws of thermodynamics to a six year in such a way that he could understand it. You on the other hand seem to be intent on making yourself right by getting the last word as the result of no one caring enough to take the time decipher what you have said.

Yes, the laws of thermodynamics are quite simple in their basics, and can be explained to a six-year-old so that he will understand a gross simplification of them. But will the six-year-old have any clue what the wider implications of those laws are? Not in the least. He'll understand the basic consequences, if he's clever, but when you get into the more advanced physics that surrounds thermodynamics, he'll be utterly lost without the vocabulary.

And if I were trying to teach thermodynamics to a six-year-old, I would recognize the limitations of his age and use simple language. However, I don't come to discussion forums to teach thermodynamics to six-year-olds. If six-year-olds are coming here expecting me to seek them out and teach them thermodynamics, they're really in the wrong place.

When a conversation touches on, say, the implications of thermodynamics for evolution, I have to use technical language as soon as we move past the very, very basic information. Only specific language can make my meaning clear, or even begin to describe some of the theories of modern science.

But you're telling me I should use simple, vague language because six-year-olds might be coming here to learn science from me. You know, when I signed up here I don't recall seeing any notices about our responsibility to teach science to six-year-olds at this forum.

Hey, you do you. As I said, it's a general forum. It would be nice if you would talk in such a way that everybody can be in on the discussion.

No it wouldn't. Nice for you, maybe, so that you can foolishly participate in discussions without bothering to learn anything first, but not nice for those of us who are trying to have productive discussions and keep getting sidetracked by trying to juggle hundreds of misconceptions about a simple subject. No, a given thread should be joined only by those who know enough to discuss at the level set by the thread. Anyone else is wasting everyone's time, or worse, putting completely mistaken ideas in lurkers' heads.

Oh stop. Put your girdle back on. It wasn't meant that way at all.

Oh stop. Don't lie. It was meant that way -- you're trying to imply that we expect some completely unreasonable level of education, using words like "Mensa" and "Ph.D." In fact, most discussions on this board are college-level at best. Apparently, you would have us simply avoid ever discussing subjects that a high-school dropout can't understand. I'm afraid you're the unreasonable one here.

That's a nice suggestion...if you started the conversation. But should that be the case when you didn't?

Did I say it should? If somebody starts a thread in which they want to have dumbed-down conversation, I honor that request. Usually I just stay out of those threads. You're making things up now, man, and it's getting pathetic. You're grasping at straws to convince us to stop using words you might have to *gasp* use a dictionary for. Aren't we unreasonable.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I am not a Christian. I don't know why you quote the Bible at me as if it would have any effect on me.

I find this quite humorous. "Quote the Bible at you' and why is someone’s post necessarily 'all about you'?

I saw Zaac's quotation and it conveyed a thought to me the reader that I appreciated. Perhaps you may wish to demonstrate less 'the world revolves around me' type reactions when objecting to references of arrogance.


If learned is the audience, then the quote of "me thinks thou dost protest too much" holds some irony here.

 

[Ledifni]

I find this quite humorous. "Quote the Bible at you' and why is someone’s post necessarily 'all about you'?

I saw Zaac's quotation and it conveyed a thought to me the reader that I appreciated. Perhaps you may wish to demonstrate less 'the world revolves around me' type reactions when objecting to references of arrogance.


If learned is the audience, then the quote of "me thinks thou dost protest too much" holds some irony here.

Zaac's Bible quote was directly in response to a statement I had made, and was framed as an answer. I'm so happy for you that you got something deep out of it, really I am, but if Zaac is trying to edify his fellow Christians with Bible quotes, it doesn't need to be in response to and part of a discussion with me. I don't care what the Bible says. I know what it says, but I don't care, because I've already considered it rationally and concluded that it is neither true nor reliable. If your conclusion is different, that's fine, but the only reason you might quote the Bible at me is to make a point that has nothing to do with debate. What point might that be?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Zaac's Bible quote was directly in response to a statement I had made, and was framed as an answer. I'm so happy for you that you got something deep out of it, really I am, but if Zaac is trying to edify his fellow Christians with Bible quotes, it doesn't need to be in response to and part of a discussion with me. I don't care what the Bible says. I know what it says, but I don't care, because I've already considered it rationally and concluded that it is neither true nor reliable. If your conclusion is different, that's fine, but the only reason you might quote the Bible at me is to make a point that has nothing to do with debate. What point might that be?

Possibly that despite what is evident in the plain language, despite a prophetic revelation, despite knowing what meaning is contained in scripture, that the worldly man can't help but prove it to be true.

BTW - speak with, quote to... to use the phrase "quote at" only brings about negative imagery of the listener - as in 'speaking to a wall'. Just some friendly advice/observation.

 

[Ledifni]

Possibly that despite what is evident in the plain language, despite a prophetic revelation, despite knowing what meaning is contained in scripture, that the worldly man can't help but prove it to be true.

BTW - speak with, quote to... to use the phrase "quote at" only brings about negative imagery of the listener - as in 'speaking to a wall'. Just some friendly advice/observation.

When it's being used as a weapon that contributes nothing to rational debate, "quote at" is the right way to put it. I don't care if a shovel can be used to dig holes -- if you're beating me over the head with it I'm going to call it what it is.

 

[nadroj1985]

Then perhaps you're too smart for your own good, because it can be reduced to layman's terms.

No, it really can't sometimes. Just try to explain something like Heidegger's metaphysics in layman's terms. Your student might get a vague idea of what's going on, but will be very far from a clear understanding of the topic.

Have we been discussing an advanced mathematics topic? And if we were, the basis of it would still be adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.

Yes, so anyone who knows how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, can easily learn integral calculus using just those terms, right? No; new, confusing things have to be introduced, which sound really technical, like "derivatives" and "limits" and all kinds of other weird stuff. Now, the funny thing is, these things are actually meaningful, and essential in order for someone to understand integral calculus. You can't get by with just adding and subtracting.

Sure it can. That's just a lie that all that schooling has convinced ya'll of. People don't suddenly become learned just because they go to college.

When did anyone come anywhere remotely close to making this assertion? This is irrelevant.

There are plenty of Joe blows on the street who never go to school who can hold a conversation with you about advanced mathematiccs and philosophy and break it down so that the bag lady on the corner can understand it.

No, there really aren't.

Why do you think colleges exist? Simply to make someone feel good about themselves because they're smarter than someone else? Is that your honest opinion? Have you never been to college, never experienced learning something really hard, really complex, yet useful?

True understanding is measured by how you can teach the concepts to others, not by how much you can show that you know.

I agree. But the concepts themselves must maintain their meaning, and simplifying them sometimes endangers that possibility.

Again, vanity.

Nonsense, vanity has nothing to do with it. Many times, I am the layman that cannot understand something without further study. In fact, that's probably the case more times than not. But I accept that not only do some things require me to learn more before I can understand them, but that there are also probably many interesting things that I cannot hope to comprehend.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I do enjoy seeing this stereotyping from some as if what was being addressed all relates back to the 'issue is complicated' and using examples of scientific academia rather than pointing out the complexity of a forum issue.
IOW - the false premise implied.



Now before someone gets their ego in a twist (which ego is what is really the thread topic), save the rhetorical counter of 'example by extreme' - not all of us are as low wattage as some may wish to assume.

 

[Ledifni]

I do enjoy seeing this stereotyping from some as if what was being addressed all relates back to the 'issue is complicated' and using examples of scientific academia rather than pointing out the complexity of a forum issue.
IOW - the false premise implied.

Ah, I see -- so the false premise is the assumption that people on this forum might discuss scientific academia?

I discuss advanced scientific academia on this forum, as do many others here. The premise is therefore not false, and you are committing the fallacy of assuming that since you do not discuss scientific academia, nobody else has any interest in doing so.

 

[Ledifni]

Zaac, the lesson you should learn from this thread can be summed up very simply (and we know you like things to be simple): Words that are easy to understand are not necessarily preferable to or more true than words that are difficult to understand.