thinkdr wrote:In practice this means that we will NOT immediately seek what holes we can pick in what someone has said or written. [We will become ‘virtue-finders’ instead of fault-finders.]
....Your views on this topic?
promethean75 wrote:hey that's the reality of it, thinkdr. i've gotten to the point where i dislike someone so much i go looking for ways to make them wrong. it's like i'm a walking ad hominem machine, dude. and it may even be by the merits of the argument alone, that it's wrong, but i don't even care about that. i'm totally motivated by my contempt first... and then i just happen to find a bad argument. if i don't find one, i'll make it a bad argument. it's crazy dude. i need therapy.
thinkdr wrote:I’d like to discuss with you something that’s been on my mind lately.
Things make sense when everything fits together.
Therefore, how make things fit?
They fit when they’re compatible.
People are compatible when they agree, share common values, or have reached a consensus on several issues. Thus if we want things to make sense, we will work to figure out on what we can agree; and we will build on that to a wider area of agreement. We will strive to find a consensus.
In practice this means that we will NOT immediately seek what holes we can pick in what someone has said or written. [We will become ‘virtue-finders’ instead of fault-finders.]
....Your views on this topic?
Dan~ wrote:thinkdr wrote:I’d like to discuss with you something that’s been on my mind lately.
Things make sense when everything fits together.
Therefore, how make things fit?
They fit when they’re compatible.
People are compatible when they agree, share common values, or have reached a consensus on several issues. Thus if we want things to make sense, we will work to figure out on what we can agree; and we will build on that....
....Your views on this topic?
Now despotism is gone...
Karpel Tunnel wrote: it sounds like you ... are upset ....
No, I am not upset.
To understand why, re-read that very-brief explanation, "Achieving Emotional Peace" which I live by. [It is offered on pp. 16-17, of LIVING WELL: How ethics helps us flourish, which is the third selection in the References in the signature below.]
... if you are right, then go directly to application. Show the world how these ideas work in concrete situations, problem solving conflicts and conflicts based on value differences. Then the book will catch on.
thinkdr wrote:.
I’d like to discuss with you something that’s been on my mind lately.
Things make sense when everything fits together.
Therefore, how make things fit?
They fit when they’re compatible.
People are compatible when they agree, share common values, or have reached a consensus on several issues. Thus if we want things to make sense, we will work to figure out on what we can agree; and we will build on that to a wider area of agreement. We will strive to find a consensus.
In practice this means that we will NOT immediately seek what holes we can pick in what someone has said or written. [We will become ‘virtue-finders’ instead of fault-finders.]
....Your views on this topic?
I have had the same reaction to his threads. It has seemed to me as if they are founded on the idea that, really, deep down, we all agree and have the same values, so it's just a matter of rationally laying out how to achieve the society we all really want. But that is not my experience. I experience people as having fundamentally different values. Some for example actually prefer chaos and violence. That's an extreme, but not insignificant minority. Then there are all sorts of splits over even how to sit, stand, communicate, raise children, have or not sex, how to be a woman or man, what the goals are, how to achieve greatness and what that is. And these are based on axioms and preferences that are not reconcilable via rational argument. But for him it is a science.obsrvr524 wrote:
If their perspective of virtue is the opposite of what you propose, why should they listen to you?
“Let us in education dream of an aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity.”
obsrvr524 wrote:thinkdr wrote:.
I’d like to discuss with you something that’s been on my mind lately.
Things make sense when everything fits together.
Therefore, how make things fit?
They fit when they’re compatible.
People are compatible when they agree, share common values, or have reached a consensus on several issues. Thus if we want things to make sense, we will work to figure out on what we can agree; and we will build on that to a wider area of agreement. We will strive to find a consensus.
....Your views on this topic?
So it seems to me that you are asking those who love to hate, to change into those who love to love - and without giving them any heart felt reason for such an extreme change of values and character. "Fault-finding" is what they love. And you are asking them to hate what they love most and embrace what they hate most.
If their perspective of virtue is the opposite of what you propose, why should they listen to you?
So why do you propose what cannot happen? You might as well propose "The Green New Deal".
Yes, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I meant, instead of trying to convince people via the internet, actually go to situations in the real world and solve problem. As a mediator, for example. IOW people will be much more likely to accept the ideas if they experience the ideas solving actual conflicts and situations out in the world, involving specific people. Perhaps you do this and perhaps this is what is described in those two chapters, but I am guessing it is more applied in the abstract. I just did a quick skim and it looks that way to me. Words on a page can seem to be incredibly effective. The test of a process/set of ideas is how it plays out in the field.thinkdr wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:... if you are right, then go directly to application. Show the world how these ideas work in concrete situations, problem solving conflicts and conflicts based on value differences. Then the book will catch on.
Thank you, karpal, for your constructive suggestion.
Actually, in Chapters Four and Five of The Structure of Ethics [which is the first selection below] I have given quite a few applications of the Unified Theory of Ethics, which is the theory presented in that booklet. In the future I will go to the applications more directly, as per your wise council.
Comments? Questions? Critiques?
You are missing his point that what you are asking people to do is shift their values. And this is very different from Physical laws. If they are not different from physical laws, then it should be fairly easy to demonstrate in practical conflict situations where values are clashing.They can also ignore the findings of Physics about gravity; they can jump off a high roof and for fun glide through the air like a bird. I am informing people about reliable knowledge in the fields of Human Development, Human Relations, and Ethics.
This would be what you consider to be good character.I write about Ethics for those who already do share my core values but who, like the rest of us, do not always manage to live up to the best they know. At times they, and I, need a little reinforcement, and encouragement, and reminding.
I believe it is useful to strengthen those who already are, for the most part. of good character. They need to build on, and perhaps add to, their cognitive assets.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I meant, instead of trying to convince people via the internet, actually go to situations in the real world and solve problem. As a mediator, for example.
You told us that you "write about Ethics for those who already do share my core values but who, like the rest of us, do not always manage to live up to the best they know. At times they, and I, need a little reinforcement, and encouragement, and reminding."
You wrote: "I believe it is useful to strengthen those who already are, for the most part. of good character. They need to build on, and perhaps add to, their cognitive assets. ..This would be what you consider to be good character."
... you mentioned your age somewhere and that it was rather high up there. Perhaps this inhibits you from getting out in the trenches....
... the problem is deeper than you seem to realize is not choosing chaos, it is facing unpleasant truths, from where I sit at least.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:... people will be much more likely to accept the ideas if they experience the ideas solving actual conflicts and situations out in the world, involving specific people. Perhaps you do this and perhaps this is what is described in those two chapters, but I am guessing it is more applied in the abstract. I just did a quick skim and it looks that way to me. Words on a page can seem to be incredibly effective. The test of a process/set of ideas is how it plays out in the field.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:...what you are asking people to do is shift their values. And this is very different from Physical laws. If they are not different from physical laws, then it should be fairly easy.... At one point in this thread you say you are just trying to help people who share core values.
---David KortenWe will prosper in the pursuit of life, or we will perish in the pursuit of money. The choice is ours."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users