First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Reason
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

I have some questions for you to consider and to contemplate.


Then I have some answers for you to consider and to contemplate.


Why is it that reason and logic has been attributed to being just a space void of empathy?


I think that may ultimately trace back to the overall results of a conflict between idealist and materialist viewpoints that emerged during the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. Religious dogmatism and aristocratic hierarchies began to lose their places as the central institutions around which political, economic, and social structures were constructed in light of technological advances' impact on the relative ease of trade, travel, and cultural diffusion, and as standards of living rose and the general availability of information increased alongside access to education people began to ask themselves how they were supposed to view the rapidly changing world in which they lived.

Some argued that industry, reason, and empirical science were positive forces that would surely lend themselves to unyielding progress in the advancement of human prosperity if properly wielded, while others expressed concerns that these same things were actually alienating human beings from their "natural" state and should be opposed. To study human beings and the world in general through figures and processes, in the latter camp's view, was to cheapen them by missing their essence. Any gains to be made through industrial society were considered a losing bargain in the grand scheme.

It's difficult for me to claim that this strain of idealism was utterly routed in light of the fact that romantic, agrarian, and transcendental writings remain culturally significant, but I think it reasonable to suggest that the camp advocating for materialism ended up winning a bigger share of the cultural pie given the centrality of empirical science, industrial modes of production, and pursuit of technological advancement to modern life. People seem to have largely rejected the idea that industrial society takes more than it gives, and in order to pursue even greater gains the view is that anything that doesn't mesh with the underpinnings of an industrial society isn't worth bothering with. That meant, for a time at least, abandonment of subjective constructs in favour of purely objective ones for the sake of pursuing what was considered a purer form of scientific inquiry (an example would be the rise of Behaviourism in the history of psychology), and the embers of that approach still glow today.


Why do people champion themselves as being arbiters of reason with justification that it is because they are insensitive to criticism?


The same sort of rejection of subjective constructs as things that dirty the pool of science and reasoning, I suppose. It seems to be what informs rejection of constructs like gender identification and insistence that chromosomal makeup and genital configuration are all one needs to definitively pin down who someone properly is, for example.


Why is it that people assume what they are capable of or what they themselves are best at seamlessly translates to other people despite differing environmental and biological predisposition?


A big part of that is probably because it's difficult to relate to experiences one hasn't personally had and isn't often a witness to. This is why someone like Donald Trump, a man born into wealth, who inherited a great deal more wealth after his father's death, and makes real estate deals on a daily basis considers sums of money most people would view as quite large to be rather small: because he routinely witnesses and personally participates in transactions involving such sums. That's the world he knows.


What is 'common sense' if you don't understand it--if you are unable to explain it?


"Common sense" is a fabrication built around a view of one's approach to an issue and/or conclusions as being necessarily correct as an axiom. It's a mental pat on the back we give ourselves as reassurance that the decisions we're making and the views we're holding aren't dissonant from our objectives. Of course things should be done/seen this way or that, because that's how we do/see them and it works for us. And because we have a tendency to believe that those around us agree with us in order to avoid distress brought on by the notion of being a social outlier we tend to consider our own sense of things to be "common" sense.

I've unfortunately run out of time and it's going to be a busy weekend for me, so that's all I'll be able to do. Sorry.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
These questions seem to imply that these are mutually exclusive.

Most questions can be answered with "You will have to ask these people."


What do you think reason is? Do you think people have lost touch with it? Why?
Reason is a word that means exactly what is means in a dictionary.
Not everyone will make sense of the world or interpret their experiences the same way and I think this has a lot to do with following what ever makes sense to the individual.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

neugenx wrote:

To answer your questions as I see them (only my opinion):



Logical or analytical thinking is repressed by empathetic thought--but I'm not sure they are entirely mutually exclusive either. Baron-Cohen had once broke down humans into two mental abilities: systemizing and empathizing. I'm not entirely convinced they're mutually exclusive yet, but research is certainly moving in that direction.

I'm not really familiar with Order vs Chaos material. I only start thinking of Chaos theory, something I certainly adore. Your interpretation is interestingly distinct.

I also applaud your 3rd point. We can make an observation that all swans are white. However, we later find a black swan. Suddenly our previous conclusion contradicts with our new observations. I can say with probable certainty that pigs won't fly tomorrow, but I cannot say it with absolute certainty.


GrandMasterTime wrote:



I do side on the idea that empathy disrupts and represses logical thinking. The only thing is, and what I'm really trying to get across--someone who demonstrates apathy and insensitivity is not automatically more logical. The issue I find, is that people have attributed evidence of logical and analytical thought processes to be demonstrated by apathetic (sometimes even malicious) behavior.

I like your chess comment a lot actually. I think that's a great way of viewing it. Systemizing and empathizing may be mutually exclusive--but wisdom calls for both. When it comes to the complexities of human behavior, analytical thought processes seem to run short of more comprehensive understanding just like empathetic ones (although in different facets).

10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

I have some questions for you to consider and to contemplate.

Why is it that reason and logic has been attributed to being just a space void of empathy?

Why do people champion themselves as being arbiters of reason with justification that it is because they are insensitive to criticism?

Why is it that people assume what they are capable of or what they themselves are best at seamlessly translates to other people despite differing environmental and biological predisposition?

What is 'common sense' if you don't understand it--if you are unable to explain it?

What dangers are there of spaces ruled by its sworn loyalty to empathy? Now what about apathetic ones?

Why are people quick to label an idea created by 'other' and negate to address the idea itself? Are they content with bathing in the position they've already placed themselves in and so instead focus on nuances that fit within it?

Are people mindless to their emotionally driven 'war-like' dispositions?

Why do people waste time on those who did not reason themselves into their position and cannot be reasoned with? Does it fuel the ego to engage in fruitless situations?

What is the necessity of people to assassinate the character of their opponent instead of the ideas they are providing? Are their arguments unable to stand on their own?

Why are people quick to label themselves the more logical one, the more rational one, the superior intellectual if they are unable to demonstrate it without say-so?

Is it logical to ignore human nature rather than acknowledge it?

Ask yourselves these questions and then attempt to answer the following:

What do you think reason is? Do you think people have lost touch with it? Why?



Why bother starting a thread like this?
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

AkitoMadaka wrote:

Why bother starting a thread like this?


I'm not sure what you're getting at, it's rather vague. I can promote worthwhile conversations with people on here if I engage them to think bigger. People in General Discussion have had issues and misconceptions surrounding the ideas I'm trying to address. I'd be surprised if any would be able to defend their behavior rather than reconsider it. Questions get people to introspect more as opposed to me just telling them what to think.


13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
I'm beginning to pick up on the type of people you are describing. You're right; I have seen an increase in their activity over the years. I think these people lack an understanding of the difference between moral right and pragmatic right. If they're moral nihilists they're being perfectly consistent. If not their presuppositions don't hold up to their behaviour.
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:

Why bother starting a thread like this?


I'm not sure what you're getting at, it's rather vague. I can promote worthwhile conversations with people on here if I engage them to think bigger. People in General Discussion have had issues and misconceptions surrounding the ideas I'm trying to address. I'd be surprised if any would be able to defend their behavior rather than reconsider it. Questions get people to introspect more as opposed to me just telling them what to think.




I say what I think if I'm being asked my opinion.

My opinion with this is that you intentionally started a thread with a wall of text taking pot-shots at people while posting smug jpgs/gifs of some dude from an anime. As soon as people rebound and say shit like "I don't do that" or get even the slightest defensive you have something to work of of.

It's creepy and smug. I feel like you need help.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

AkitoMadaka wrote:

I say what I think if I'm being asked my opinion.

My opinion with this is that you intentionally started a thread with a wall of text taking pot-shots at people while posting smug jpgs/gifs of some dude from an anime. As soon as people rebound and say shit like "I don't do that" or get even the slightest defensive you have something to work of of.

It's creepy and smug. I feel like you need help.


They're just questions. I do not dictate your answers to them.

What does assassinating my character do for you?

The idea is for people to genuinely ask themselves these questions and then formulate an answer to the last couple of questions. The intention is not to 'attack' people but to get them to 'reevaluate'. If you feel offended by it, what are you doing better?



Even I'm guilty of making some of these mistakes in my thinking. I have not shunned or assaulted anyone for their answers. This wasn't intended to target people. Questions help people improve themselves.

If someone feels defensive about being asked questions then that's a sign to them that they do not have good answers and maybe they should reflect on it with their pride put aside.

Everyone makes mistakes. Learning is not about being right, it's about recognizing mistakes and missteps.
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:

I say what I think if I'm being asked my opinion.

My opinion with this is that you intentionally started a thread with a wall of text taking pot-shots at people while posting smug jpgs/gifs of some dude from an anime. As soon as people rebound and say shit like "I don't do that" or get even the slightest defensive you have something to work of of.

It's creepy and smug. I feel like you need help.


They're just questions. I do not dictate your answers to them.

What does assassinating my character do for you?

The idea is for people to genuinely ask themselves these questions and then formulate an answer to the last couple of questions. The intention is not to 'attack' people but to get them to 'reevaluate'. If you feel offended by it, what are you doing better?



Even I'm guilty of making some of these mistakes in my thinking. I have not shunned or assaulted anyone for their answers. This wasn't intended to target people. Questions help people improve themselves.

If someone feels defensive about being asked questions then that's a sign to them that they do not have good answers and maybe they should reflect on it with their pride put aside.

Everyone makes mistakes. Learning is not about being right, it's about recognizing mistakes and missteps.


Like I said, you're twisting it back around. I don't know if you do it for shits and giggles or this is honestly something you really care about. See, most people go through this phase where they became self-made paragons of "logic" and "reason", but you're old enough to be past that. Debates are neat and all, but while this forum is for random crap that doesn't fit strictly into media, it's not really an excuse to start a philosophic debate with walls of text and to weaponize your vocabulary to belittle people as you spam your avatar.

That being said it's not like debates can't happen here, but if you're really looking for someone to match your high standards of debate and reason, there are far better places.

22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

AkitoMadaka wrote:

Like I said, you're twisting it back around. I don't know if you do it for shits and giggles or this is honestly something you really care about. See, most people go through this phase where they became self-made paragons of "logic" and "reason", but you're old enough to be past that. Debates are neat and all, but while this forum is for random crap that doesn't fit strictly into media, it's not really an excuse to start a philosophic debate with walls of text and to weaponize your vocabulary to belittle people as you spam your avatar.

That being said it's not like debates can't happen here, but if you're really looking for someone to match your high standards of debate and reason, there are far better places.



You are asking I think less of the people I'm around. I absolutely refuse.I do not want to 'dumb myself down' around others because I think less of their intellect. You could have asked for me to attempt to clarify anything I've said better, but instead you've suggested that the crunchyroll audience is incapable of having "high standard" conversation. Are you not projecting your insecurities on everyone else?

Weaponize my vocabulary? What the hell, man.


1240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
Reason... for me to poop on.
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:

Like I said, you're twisting it back around. I don't know if you do it for shits and giggles or this is honestly something you really care about. See, most people go through this phase where they became self-made paragons of "logic" and "reason", but you're old enough to be past that. Debates are neat and all, but while this forum is for random crap that doesn't fit strictly into media, it's not really an excuse to start a philosophic debate with walls of text and to weaponize your vocabulary to belittle people as you spam your avatar.

That being said it's not like debates can't happen here, but if you're really looking for someone to match your high standards of debate and reason, there are far better places.



You are asking I think less of the people I'm around. I absolutely refuse.I do not want to 'dumb myself down' around others because I think less of their intellect. You could have asked for me to attempt to clarify anything I've said better, but instead you've suggested that the crunchyroll audience is incapable of having "high standard" conversation. Are you not projecting your insecurities on everyone else?

Weaponize my vocabulary? What the hell, man.




Nah, I understand what you're saying, don't need you to CONTINUE TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS IN AN EFFORT TO BELITTLE AND BERATE OTHERS(Sorry for the caps but sometimes i'm dead sure people just gloss over what I'm saying).

That's basically all. I'm sure more than a hand-full of people here would love to join your little circle-jerk, and no, your vocabulary isn't what's belittling necessarily, it's more word-selection and phrasing The demons are in the details.. Either you're leading me on further OR you really have no idea what you're saying. Either way, if you're not willing to at least meet me half-way, I see no point in continuing to waste my time.

22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16

AkitoMadaka wrote:

Nah, I understand what you're saying, don't need you to CONTINUE TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS IN AN EFFORT TO BELITTLE AND BERATE OTHERS(Sorry for the caps but sometimes i'm dead sure people just gloss over what I'm saying).

That's basically all. I'm sure more than a hand-full of people here would love to join your little circle-jerk, and no, you vocabulary isn't what's belittling. Either you're leading me on further OR you really have no idea what you're saying. Either way, if you're not willing to at least meet me half-way, I see no point in continuing to waste my time.



....I'm not belittling anyone...circle jerk?.....

Can you actually point these things out?



10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:

Nah, I understand what you're saying, don't need you to CONTINUE TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS IN AN EFFORT TO BELITTLE AND BERATE OTHERS(Sorry for the caps but sometimes i'm dead sure people just gloss over what I'm saying).

That's basically all. I'm sure more than a hand-full of people here would love to join your little circle-jerk, and no, you vocabulary isn't what's belittling. Either you're leading me on further OR you really have no idea what you're saying. Either way, if you're not willing to at least meet me half-way, I see no point in continuing to waste my time.



....I'm not belittling anyone...circle jerk?.....

Can you actually point these things out?





"1.Even I'm guilty of making some of these mistakes in my thinking. I have not shunned or assaulted anyone for their answers. This wasn't intended to target people. 2a.Questions help people improve themselves.

If someone feels defensive about being asked questions then that's a sign to them that 2bthey do not have good answers and maybe they should reflect on it with their pride put aside.

3aEveryone makes mistakes. Learning is not about being right, it's about 3brecognizing mistakes and missteps"

1. With the opening you're already putting yourself on a higher position. Sounds like something a parent/teacher would say.

2. So wait, are you hoping that instead someone takes these rhetorical and instead gives you their answer and weigh it? What's this about mistakes? Is there any single correct answer to these? Also, what's this about "improving themselves". Are you saying somehow they aren't good enough? What's the purpose of that phrase?

3. If you really wanted people to take these to heart and have something to ponder on you I wonder why you speak on so much about "mistakes".

So what, was this a quiz or something?
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16
"You are asking I think less of the people I'm around. I absolutely refuse.I do not want to 'dumb myself down' around others because I think less of their intellect.1 You could have asked for me to attempt to clarify anything I've said better, 2 but instead you've suggested that the crunchyroll audience is incapable of having "high standard" conversation. 3Are you not projecting your insecurities on everyone else?

Weaponize my vocabulary? What the hell, man."

1. I understand what you're saying, otherwise I would have left by now. Cheap shot there.
2. Now you're deflecting my insult to you on to others. I'm sure plenty of people here are smart enough.
3. Boom, wrapping up with an snappy insult.
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
I'm not sure what you're getting at, it's rather vague. I can promote worthwhile conversations with people on here if I engage them to think bigger. People in General Discussion have had issues and misconceptions surrounding the ideas I'm trying to address. I'd be surprised if any would be able to defend their behavior rather than reconsider it. Questions get people to introspect more as opposed to me just telling them what to think.

1. Why and how is it your job to lovingly help people "think bigger"?

2 What are those issues? To my knowledge you always take the unpopular position, my first run in is when you played devil's advocate for some degenerate seeking approval for incest.

3.What behavior? Why should people even have to defend abstract thoughts in the first place? I can't buy food with a moral debate.

4. What makes you think you even have that power in the first place?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.