Do people value consent in argument?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Artimas » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:28 am

I view the ignorant differently than the idiot.

To me the ignorant is someone who still possesses curiosity and their spark not lost but only lacks understanding of their knowing.

An idiot is someone who is consumed by tyrannical ego completely and becomes willfully ignorant due to their literal sense only type thought process. They liveth in death and it shalt be their food.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3334
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Guide » Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:31 am

“You must first peak the ignorant mans curiosity, before disciplining him about it. This is where we sometimes miss the psychological point. Some are not reachable through discussion at all due to their ego completely disregarding the subconscious, an only literal type of thinking, an entrapment of huge magnitude by their own psyche and only through their last moments before ceasing do they realize or understand, in the flashing of their life before their eyes.”


How would you proceed then? Of course, it’s true, in more general terms, human beings are superficial as hell, and it’s all up with them most of the time as long as the multitude shares, in the main, their manner of making empty noises as though to pretend understanding.

“If they resort to fallacy in debate”


I’m not interested in debate. But in clearing up the obstacles to investigation. The whole talk of “fallacy” is an obstacle. It implies that rules are to think for us. Instead of thinking. That made a certain sense, for instance, in the disputations, which were collective research into the truth, of the medievals, because they had a shared goal, were working together, and moreover understood that the fallacy was only relative, and simply a matter of the person involved. For instance, if I speak of a “question begging”, it means only that I don’t accept a premise, and I want to alert the other investigator that they are going on without me. It is never a question of simply a “fallacy” in the sense that this is said in academic and in scientism circles. No such exists for thinking people. Things make sense, or they don’t, that is so. But, it is on the basis of thinking genuinely, not pointing to some rule that then is the measure of the subject matter, rather than letting the subject matter be its own measure.


“We must understand that they do not understand and the why, who, what, when, how of this.”


But, this is very harsh. And repudiates all concessions through courage and superlative effort to the not throwing pearls rule. Rather like not cutting open the belly of a pig, standing shivering in the American snow, and so not letting the red blood spell out their condition, even the most painful way to truth is blocked, since it is supposed to be because of a lack in their innate faculties, and not for the sake of avoiding the nuisance of not being understood. Though, I must admit I have noticed this recalcitrance of character as what is not deliberate but unchosen and constitutional.
Guide
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users