First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Reason
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
Going to have bedtime now.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16
^ I don't think OP was trying to assert herself on a higher status than anyone here. It's true that I see a few of these rather blatanatly directed at me, but I see other questions that could possibly point to a few other users, and a few that are just generalized.

Anyway

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

Logic, by itself, is a space devoid of empathy. Thinking of something from a reasonable standpoint has a lot more nuance to it than thinking solely on a logical standpoint. The words are not interchangeable.

In short, reasoning can factor in logic with empathy.

Speaking for myself, I typically look at things from a largely logical standpoint. When I debate, I try to argue as neutrally as possible. Why? Because even I am prone to confirmation bias and I am truly trying to change my perspective when I enter a discussion. Whether or not it is learning something new or having a stance change.

So, in my opinion, arguing from a stance of reason just adds too many variables to come to a logical concensus between both parties, ever. It makes it too easy to fall prey to a confirmation bias, and makes it even more difficult to see a bigger picture. It focuses more on the how of things rather than the why.

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

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?

"My way is best." It's purely a function of lacking other perspectives.

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

What dangers are there of spaces ruled by its sworn loyalty to empathy?

Disregard of facts for feelings
Misconception that all things need to be treated equally regardless of specialization
Pedantic attention to wording/taking offense where offense is undue
Hypocrisy due to having little importance in a logical basis of thought
Inability to see the bigger picture

Now what about apathetic ones?

Disregard of feelings for facts
Unreasonably high standards for institutes/organizations
Possibly a low productivity of new ideas
Unacceptance of the subtle nuance usually present in strong emotional standpoints
Inability to see all the little things that make up the bigger picture.

In short, they are polar opposites, but each have their downsides.

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? 

You answered this question with the second question. Confirmation bias makes new positions hard to grasp.

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

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? 

Speaking strictly for myself, I like to see as many perspectives of a debate as possible. Even if I know that 99% of what will be said has already been said before, I never know when someone will have something that can finally "show me up".

This is also a reason that I do not take what was said in one debate and apply it to that person in a different debate. You can argue with me on any number of different topics and my personal opinion of you will not change. I will still attempt to see your reasoning and arguments on other topics as well. And you may be more informed in one area than another.

This also applies to similar debates that I have already gone through (i.e. theistic debates, AI rights, etc.)

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?

I only 'attack the person' of someone who I truly believe isn't offering anything to the table. And that's even only on days where I am already not in the best mood. If someone has countered something I said in a reasonable way, I have no inclination to attack the person.

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?

Because most people argue to win, so they can wear a theoretical badge that shows that they won x debate.

Is it logical to ignore human nature rather than acknowledge it?No.

What do you think reason is?

This is a hard question because I think that it ultimately depends on the topic at hand and the way that it gets addressed.

Do you think people have lost touch with it? Why?

No, on the basis that I don't think many people ever used/use reason at all. Most people regurgitate things that they already 'know' and don't think twice about thinking critically on the subject.


My question for OP would be: what exactly is wrong with having a completely different outlook of things than somebody else? Is looking at something from a logical standpoint more wrong, more right, or equal to looking at something from an empathetical standpoint?

I think your answer would depend on a lot of things that have to do with just how you think about things rather than some logical standpoint. I think both sides usually have something to offer, whether or not the human element was ever considered.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

AkitoMadaka wrote:
"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?


1. I was actually lowering I'm myself to say I'm guilty of these things.

2. No. I'm hoping people step away with learning something new. I'm also hoping to have interesting conversations so I can learn from other people too. Improvement doesn't mean they weren't 'good enough' before, it just means I view people to have a lot of potential. I don't think anyone here would say they stopped improving at any point in their lives. We can always strive to be better versions of ourselves.

3. I think mistakes are a good thing.


AkitoMadaka wrote:

"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.


1. ?
2. Then don't tell me to go 'somewhere else' for 'higher standard' conversation.
3. Legitimate question.


AkitoMadaka wrote:

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?


1. I like engaging with other people and discussing their big ideas. People are capable of providing really cool perspectives if you put them in the right context to do so.
2. People are more malicious to each other around General Discussion--usually justifying it as being logical.
3. Mentioned above. No you can't buy food with debate, but you also can't buy food by watching anime? I don't get the point.
4. Maybe I don't, but why not try?

29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/22/16

Hail_King_Kakao wrote:

Logic can be cold, machinelike, and completely devoid of emotion. Eg. My laptop
Emotion can be completely irrational and void of any logic.
Reason is being reasonable. Having just logic without emotion makes you no different from a thermostat. Having no logic makes you no different from a smelly dog.
Having both makes us better than animal and machine.

Its just the cool thing these days to be cold and logical and give no fucks. Plenty of mcs from fiction like that.


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

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


My question for OP would be: what exactly is wrong with having a completely different outlook of things than somebody else? Is looking at something from a logical standpoint more wrong, more right, or equal to looking at something from an empathetical standpoint?

I think your answer would depend on a lot of things that have to do with just how you think about things rather than some logical standpoint. I think both sides usually have something to offer, whether or not the human element was ever considered.


Good post, mate. And no, I wasn't 'targeting' anyone specific lol. They're generalized for a reason.

I see the issue with the one question, ehehe, whoops.

And yeah, I have a habit of getting snarky with people that aren't being particularly nice too, lol....or sexual.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but that's my point. I think people with a more analytical perspective can benefit from empathetic perspectives--and vice versa. If we stopped to look at what we can offer each other instead of what we can refuse, maybe we'd have more interesting and fruitful conversations? I don't think every situation or argument calls for a balance between them. I do think that reality without either would be a bad place.

I also don't like the trend that equates being 'apathetic' and 'rude' to logic. Logic is so much better than that. I adore logic, yah know? I suppose that's why it bugs quite a lot.





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

PrinceJudar wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:
"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?


1. I was actually lowering I'm myself to say I'm guilty of these things.

2. No. I'm hoping people step away with learning something new. I'm also hoping to have interesting conversations so I can learn from other people too. Improvement doesn't mean they weren't 'good enough' before, it just means I view people to have a lot of potential. I don't think anyone here would say they stopped improving at any point in their lives. We can always strive to be better versions of ourselves.

3. I think mistakes are a good thing.


AkitoMadaka wrote:

"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.


1. ?
2. Then don't tell me to go 'somewhere else' for 'higher standard' conversation.
3. Legitimate question.


AkitoMadaka wrote:

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?


1. I like engaging with other people and discussing their big ideas. People are capable of providing really cool perspectives if you put them in the right context to do so.
2. People are more malicious to each other around General Discussion--usually justifying it as being logical.
3. Mentioned above. No you can't buy food with debate, but you also can't buy food by watching anime? I don't get the point.
4. Maybe I don't, but why not try?



Do you actually lack the ability to see how any of this might at least be misinterpreted as belittling? Maybe there is a difference in how you really are and how I'm seeing you. That being said, I can't help but feel you're side-stepping me and playing ignorant.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16

AkitoMadaka wrote:

Do you actually lack the ability to see how any of this might at least be misinterpreted as belittling? Maybe there is a difference in how you really are and how I'm seeing you. That being said, I can't help but feel you're side-stepping me and playing ignorant.


Perhaps I'm naive, but I grew up without social skills, lol. I've been socially isolated for...uh....almost 14 years now. I do have a boyfriend online, and I'm ever grateful to him, but that's about it.

That's the only excuse I have I guess.


15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 4/22/16 , edited 4/22/16
with "common sense" I would just think A trying to go through B and C but many misses the B on the way by some reason (as to why many want to skip that complete sense that is common for maybe the goal? like how to do this but then they overshot and missed something they should or need to do maybe they was distracted by something or anything else to miss B but still they could succeed getting to C/goal)
derp.. maybe I should shut up until I clear my mind -__-

but yeah such isolation or being quite far away from others thinking/acting and how others behave and how difficult it can be to come back to it (like someone from a cell being let out and can't follow with the time or friends and still feels left alone in the world and maybe don't feel any value to those around them meaning they could do something they never have done before or would never do)
30054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/22/16

PrinceJudar


Ah, I'm going to try my best here. I don't know a lot but here goes:

I learned emotions are made of many different responses, to survive, wrapped up in one higher level of concept to respond to a stimuli. Happy branches out to many other things and actions. Like with all other emotions. There seems to be stereotypes to being emotional or logical but emotion is just another type of thought and all of it is in the head.

Is this right?

I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say, it was too much. So I used my gut to bring me to this answer.
604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
This is a fun thread.


AkitoMadaka wrote:

My opinion with this is that you intentionally started a thread with a wall of text taking pot-shots at people...



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.




AkitoMadaka wrote:

4. What makes you think you even have that power in the first place?


It does seem that PrinceJudar had examples of past forum discussions/behavior in mind in making this thread, but she didn't single anyone out or deny them a response. I took her repeated phrase "why do people" to imply that she's referring to humans in general, and human nature (which she also mentions).

Pointing out the flaws in human nature is legitimate - especially if you include yourself in your own condemnation. I think the behaviors PrinceJudar mentions in the first post result from a mistaken idea of how we function as humans: people are fundamentally selfish, tribal attention-seekers. I don't have a better argument for this than "look around", but I'd say the data of human history - and our behavior on the internet - support my statement. So let's go with it.

I'll start by using this perspective to dissect people; as I enjoy self-flagellation, I'll do me first: I can tell within myself that I make forum posts to sound smart and get approval. I happen to have thought about this particular subject, and I consider it important, so I post something about it. PrinceJudar made a sufficiently intellectually-enough thread, and the conversation was sufficiently sophisticated, that I felt like I belonged and had something to contribute. More generally, I'm pretty sure I started posting on Crunchyroll forums recently because I was bored and wanted attention: I see the little notification number at the top of the page and get a tiny thrill. Now, human motives are a tangled mess; there are probably also "good" motives in me somewhere - like that I've confused/hurt myself in the past by not understanding my own nature and I want to help people avoid such mistakes. I think I really do want that, but who knows what innate, historical, and environmental factors made me want it? Hence the tangled mess. If, on top of that mess, I'm also (as a human) viscerally tribal, I'm going to behave repulsively if I get called out for my selfishness, because to some extent I'm aware how subjective and messed-up I am:


sundin13 wrote:

We allow ourselves to become so wrapped up in our own perspective, that other perspectives become a danger to our identity, and the tighter we hold onto this identity, the more fragile it becomes, so we grasp onto it with even more fervor until it becomes our god. Our faith.

And how dare you try to murder my God.


So now let's go to PrinceJudar: If I understand correctly, AkitoMadaka, your issue is with PrinceJudar patronizingly calling "people" out for mistakes, correct? Given my low evaluation of myself and people in general, let's grant that PrinceJudar is being patronizing - perhaps knowingly so, perhaps not, as both appearance and reality matter. Maybe she's obliviously haughty; I like the idea that people post images and gifs of their avatars to score emotional points. But how obliviously haughty or patronizing is she, and does it really matter? I think she did a good job responding to most of your points, and she expressed a fairly teachable attitude. So if she is being patronizing, it's coming from a couple layers down in the motive tangle. More importantly, if we understand that people are selfish, tribal attention-seekers with mixed motives, we ought to be at least somewhat understanding when they're obnoxious, as we'd do the same were we in their position. So pointing out that PrinceJudar sounds kinda patronizing here is reasonable (calling a forum topic "Reason" seems a bit over-the-top, though that's what drew me to it), and I'd say her response was reasonable as well (if a little snarky, but that's life). I'm impressed she said she realized she also makes the mistakes she mentioned; I'm not used to people expressing that much self-awareness.

As for the comments on "standards of debate", I admit that my natural tendency is to look with disdain upon the commenters here - and most people, really. So reading this thread has been fairly humbling: sundin13's post was really good, PrinceJudar talked about black swans and so is clearly familiar with philosophy, and BlueOni sounds like she had some kind of humanities education. And lacking formal qualifications doesn't exclude one from receiving the wisdom imparted merely by living, which can be much more powerful than the stupid philosophizing I might happen to read in books. Who knows what insights any random person might have? It looks an awful lot like making this thread drew out the people interested in following a deep conversation, and we the users are the ones who decide what to do with the forums. This is the opposite of what I expected an online forum to be like, and I'm always amused when the universe disabuses me of my silly misconceptions.

Finally, I think that we have to be willing to make objective statements about human nature and good/bad behavior. None of us here possesses authority over anyone else, but we all participate in a common humanity. That common interest is what gives us the power to talk about our successes and failures. Wow, this last paragraph is cheesy. Anyway, I imagine my statement that people are selfish, tribal, and whatnot and my subsequent analyses sound really condescending, and in some sense they are. But at some point we have to be willing to say that some opinions are correct and some aren't, and there has to be some way in which it's acceptable to do so.
604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
And the original topic:

Reason is a word - and so is defined by the community of users of that word. The English-speaking community tends to think of it as the word for some kind of objective thought-faculty, but it often gets used as a bludgeon against one's ideological enemies: whatever supports my views is Reason. The perception of what reason stands for is exactly what makes it useful as a bludgeon. I think the most amusing example of the word being used this way is Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason. I believe Gore joked that both sides of the debate would consider his book aptly named.

I don't really think reason is necessarily axiomatic, or the same as logic. This is partly because the word reasoning can refer to thinking based off any sort of principles, like intuition. Spatial reasoning doesn't sound particularly logical. So I think reason can indeed be empathetic. It's easy to split reason off of emotion, though, as humans also tend to make bad decisions based off emotions. There's a historical/experiential pressure to divide the two. I think it's hard to define reason an out-there thing due to the word's dependence on human use.

So I think people use the word reason as they're taught to by the preexisting community. And since people are selfish, tribal attention-seekers, they'll naturally do strange things to the concept "reason" and the word itself.
34924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 4/22/16
This thread reminds me of my intro to philosophy class.
3057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The 2D World
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16
Before the text wall begins I have to ask myself, why the hell am I answering these questions? I hate thinking. Except when I'm playing games. Also I'm probably going to make absolutely no sense with some of my answers, and forgive me for that I'm dumb.
With that out of the way let's begin.



Well that wall of text is done. Curse you for making me think!... No wait. Curse myself for thinking!... No wait. BAH! I'm done thinking. I'm gonna go on youtube. Please criticize the crap I spewed in this post well... or don't. Just say it's crap if you wanna. I'll just take it because it proooooobably is.
Also I edited it into a spoiler thingy because it was longer than anticipated.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16

BlueOni wrote:

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


I wanted to wait until I had good time and a cup of coffee to go over yours legitimately. I always enjoy having your input.


BlueOni wrote:

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.


Ah, Skinner. Science was indeed very cold during that time. While Skinner and the Behaviorists had contributed sometimes brilliant experiments or even the invention of the Skinner Box--it is difficult to remember them positively. Especially recalling instances like when he had confined his daughter to a sort of Skinner Box for the first couple of years of her life. It is not surprising to me that many psychologists have a hard time remaining positive when discussing Behaviorists.

You're likely on the right track though. It is probable that such attitudes are derived between the idealistic and materialistic viewpoints you had mentioned. Human exceptionalism, for one, is probably a good marker for that. Perhaps it is pride of the species that makes humans so against being removed from the center of the universe. Richard Dawkins comes to mind. That is also partly why biologists have to draw a sharp line between animals and the 'culturally derived' human to avoid being politicized.

Maybe current matters have a lot to do with that line...


BlueOni wrote:

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.


I'm not sure I would say a subjective construct to science and reasoning is necessarily wrong, but rather that constructs without validation are. Constructs derived to aid comfort or complacency with one's preconceived ideas or image of a simpler 'reality'.

The simplification of a complex reality. That reminds me of a lot of people. Perhaps it's because I'm more along the lines of a theoretical driven scientist, but I've always had a fascination with paradox, chaos, uncertainty, mystery, and the unknowable. Due to that, I often find myself frustrated with people that oversimplify matters without realization. Reductionism is a valid approach, but only with holistic and complexity awareness.


BlueOni wrote:

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.


There is an ignorance impossible to avoid in this inevitably unfair world. Experiences are what drives our understanding and character--even our genetic makeup. As humans, we can only place probable certainty as to what those experiences may be like; some people have tools to make far better guesses.

Even in a legitimate equal opportunity society--the talented would be at the top.


BlueOni wrote:

"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.


That's a brilliant way of putting it. To view one's own conclusions as axioms. I love it. That would also help my understanding as to why people have such a difficult time providing explanation--to them it is simply self evident. Of course that's always going to cause a ruckus when one has derived different axioms compared to another. Neither can really explain it, but it has all the drive of being truth. Humans always did have a habit of defending and advocating for the truth.




Aoikihen wrote:

Ah, I'm going to try my best here. I don't know a lot but here goes:

I learned emotions are made of many different responses, to survive, wrapped up in one higher level of concept to respond to a stimuli. Happy branches out to many other things and actions. Like with all other emotions. There seems to be stereotypes to being emotional or logical but emotion is just another type of thought and all of it is in the head.

Is this right?

I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say, it was too much. So I used my gut to bring me to this answer.


I'm not sure I have the authority to say if that is right or wrong. I don't think they're entirely mutually exclusive either--at least not in the way logic is more commonly understood (like ability to use formal logic).
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16
While you creeps are masturbating each other over this subject, there are people out there making constructive use of their time. Your reasoning and logic are flawed because you aren't doing anything that matters. You want to come on here and try to convince others that what you are doing matters in the least? You're dating yourselves while inflated on hypocritical self-notions. Your pretentiousness and closeted, flagrant homosexuality isn't impressing anyone. You are nothings with nothing to say. Bags of hot air and nothing more.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.