When you ask a question to which you expect or are pushing to recieve a complete opinion or a well rounded repsonse and instead get short thoughtless answers what can you say to get the person or persons to open themselves up?
An activist board that I belong to is infested with this type of conversation.
I posted this here because I know philosophers have no problem with thinking.
Any helpful response?
why give short responses?
-one reason is that the supposition that rational argument will lead to truth, or at least agreement, generally proves false. very rarely are people convinced by way of argument. people like ideas that conform to and support their existing prejudices and beliefs, not ideas that challenge them.
-if you think that argument is futile in the sense that it does not produce agreed-upon conclusions, then putting forth a simple statement gets to the heart of the matter: it puts forth a view. the reader either will or will not agree with the view, regardless of what argument is put forth in support of it. argument thus becomes extraneous and unnecessary from this point of view.
-people might also just be lazy.
-or maybe they dont put forth arguments and reasons because they dont have any. but nonetheless, what they say might still be true (an ancient caveman might have said that there are 9 planets, and gotten it right just by luck; but nonetheless, his belief would be considered true).
-or perhaps the reason no argument is put forth is b/c they accept the dogmatism of their beliefs, and no that no argument could convince them that their beliefs are not true and correct. hence, no argument is given b/c they are sure that they are right.
why give short responses?
-one reason is that the supposition that rational argument will lead to truth, or at least agreement, generally proves false. very rarely are people convinced by way of argument. people like ideas that conform to and support their existing prejudices and beliefs, not ideas that challenge them.
-if you think that argument is futile in the sense that it does not produce agreed-upon conclusions, then putting forth a simple statement gets to the heart of the matter: it puts forth a view. the reader either will or will not agree with the view, regardless of what argument is put forth in support of it. argument thus becomes extraneous and unnecessary from this point of view.
-people might also just be lazy.
-or maybe they dont put forth arguments and reasons because they dont have any. but nonetheless, what they say might still be true (an ancient caveman might have said that there are 9 planets, and gotten it right just by luck; but nonetheless, his belief would be considered true).
-or perhaps the reason no argument is put forth is b/c they accept the dogmatism of their beliefs, and no that no argument could convince them that their beliefs are not true and correct. hence, no argument is given b/c they are sure that they are right.
Sometimes I wixh I could speak in one or two phrases and feel like I said what I wanted to say. But it seems so incomplete
Small responses tend to seem more like fact. “The sky is blue”. “Gravity is.” I don’t necessarily believe that they’re an easy way out, but they’re rarely convincing to the undecided sceptic. Thus long response are more complete.
Dialog is the only way though. As soon as you get into a conversation with a philosopher, it’s like chess. Wait until they say the wrong thing, and pounce. You’ll have them on your side for a couple of months. And then you just play 'em again. See who wins. There is no answer, only the game.