A little talk on arguments and what I've concluded from them

Post Reply New Topic

I've made use of this forum quite extensively over the past few weeks, and I have inevitably fallen into a few arguments here. This doesn't have to mean the angry type of argument however, but just generally whenever I am confronted with people that have radically different views that mine through my posts. I have come to quite a few conclusions about myself through pensive thought about these encounters (but also through other things happening in my life right now), and thought I may as well share them here in PPR, due to the fact that this place has been the source of many arguments in the past and may be especially relevant to people here.

1. It is never helpful to defend a side when you don't have extensive knowledge and have come to reasonable conclusions about said side. Otherwise, you are simply arguing because you disagree with someone's opinion, and that is not only morally bad, but is setting yourself up for failure.

2. No ideology is correct. Our views are largely influenced by our personality and temperament, and we have no real control over those. Therefore, by this line of reasoning, we should never put people at fault, even subconsciously, if they have a radically different perspective than our own.

3. We are all hypocrites. Our views sometimes naturally contradict one another. This is due to the fact that we do not rationally think through every pre-supposed view and opinion that we own and compare them logically to opposing ones. Therefore, sometimes opposing views that are true nonetheless need to be shown to us so we can perfect our own. When these contradictions are seen in others, it should not be a sign of stupidity, but of humanity. We should then be as lenient as possible to those who do not see what may look to be blatant contradictions in their own perspective and ways of thinking, because everyone suffers from this universal plight.

So if I had to sum it up: relativism is key, and we should constantly question ourselves and abide by reason.

P.S.: After a reread, I realized some of this may sound offensive, but I really didn't mean it that way! I'm not trying to attack anyone here with these observations, they were all pretty much drawn from myself.

P.P.S: I may be retiring from WP for a little bit, hope nobody minds.

Is everything fine with you, if I can ask? I hope to see you back here

-

I mostly agree with your points, except the first one. I think until some point, is it good do defend opinions even if we don't have extensive knowledge – discuss something is a way to deeper your knowledge.

Of course, we should be always able to understand our own limitations but they will be always exist, if we stop to defend our points because we don't have a solid base for it, we risk never being able to speak about anything (and then we let the space not for people who has more solid base, but for the people who don't understand their limitations).

i am not interested in arguing with people.
their agendas and mine are never congruent.

i like to contemplate subjectively my understanding of things, and on this site i am always required to back it up with a link to someone smarter than me who has also reached the same conclusion.

"evidence please" means "trusted intellectual authority verification by way of having thought of it first" is required to make them credit anything you say.

"links please ?" they may say, and you may say "i have not got any links because this is the first time i am saying it", and then you are written off as an uneducated dunce.

yeah well i think "education does not instill intelligence or endow one with the capacity for mental creativity", it is merely a ladder on which people climb in order to "learn" what they believe they should consider.

it can not allow someone to see the fundamentals and build their own way to an idea that has never been thought of.

what about g=1/e^4?
g = force of gravity.
e=mc^2

just an idea that no one who can not demonstrate it in physical terms will ever be able to propose.

yeah no one knows what is the case with multiverses or what was before the big bang (if anything) or all
that stuff because it is all just wild postulation by people who have been educated and are trusted due to their qualification more than the essential obviousness of their proposals.

it is not worth challenging anyone, because if they have settled down in their satisfaction that they are correct despite not really understanding what they are saying, then they are not worth the energy.

they certainly can not upset my sense of mental security.

i really was interested in replying to your extremely clear idea of reality until you said you are only 15.

sorry about that. over and out.

yeah maybe i was alarmed at your age, but this is all completely public, so i will say that i too have come to the same ideas as renowned philosophers without ever knowing what they said until i look up whether that idea has ever been had.

i have not grown any more intelligent since i was about 17, so i can not see any flaws in your comment.

all i have done is covered lots of ground with that intelligence, and i have never really felt an urge to communicate what i have decided is the case.

i am not extraordinarily intelligent, but i have a personality that is closed off to outside influence and so more flourishing in internal constructs.

never bother arguing with someone who is trapped by their ego into maintaining their assertion beyond reasonable dissemblance by intelligent scrutiny

whatever i am off to fly in my simulator now

What I can say for certain is that we're not a club with pre-screened membership.

Some people come on here because they have ideas, want to test the veracity of their ideas, and want to see what kinds of counter-arguments other people have for the sake of checking how complete their worldview is and broadening it based on what they discover. Some people are further along that path than others. There are still other people who do, as you noted, come here to proselytize their personal views, still others who might try arguing for the fun of arguing.

I think establishing culture is important because norms effect the way people act and it's actually slightly better IMHO if the topics stay a bit heady, less sensational, etc. because if you have to bore anyone into not staying - which you inevitably will no matter what you do - you'd rather it be the people who are here to get a rise out of other people rather than those who are earnestly searching through ideas for broader vistas of knowledge and understanding.

Okay, in regard to no. 1, in the OP: How do you know someone doesn't have "extensive knowledge" and HAVEN'T "come to reasonable conclusions about said side", when they don't agree with what you've said? Are not "extensive", and "reasonable", subjective? I'm not trying to be flippant----I truly want to know, because what you said comes-across as you judging them in the exact same way you're accusing them of judging you, by disagreeing with you.

I don't believe one has to always have "extensive knowledge" to form an opinion----for instance, we have had many, MANY discussions on this site regarding whether a policeman shot someone in self defense, or they murdered them. It seems possible that someone couldn't possibly have "extensive knowledge" about that, unless they had personally experienced the same situation.

If you used the word "arguing" in your last sentence in no.1, in the sense of, like, "picking a fight", then I agree that there ARE some people who seem to like to argue, just for the sake of arguing----but, here's the thing..... When one speaks very matter-of-factly as you, pretty much, did with the OP, then they're asking for trouble, IMO; because, there's always going to be that one (or more) insecure person who thinks to themselves "I'm gonna prove you wrong, if it KILLS me" (aka, "I'm gonna prove you wrong even if I make an ass of myself, doing it"; but, they don't see it that way LOL).

In regard to comment no.2: I agree that our views "are largely influenced by our personality and temperament"----but, I don't agree that we have "no real control", over them. For instance, I know I can be extremely critical of people, so I really put alot of effort (to the point of going out-of-my-way) into NOT doing that; like, I might read a person's post and think "OMG, could you BE any more STUPID?" (me, being critical); so, then, I have purposely conditioned myself (me, taking control) so that the next thought is, "Okay, lemme see what this person is all about", and will read-through their post history until I feel I have a handle on where they're coming-from.

I agree that we shouldn't fault people for having a different perspective, from our own. We have a member here, for instance, who likes to, often, tell people: "maybe you should read more"----and, IMO, what they're REALLY saying is: "maybe you should read more, until you have the same opinion, as ME"----but, I just consider the source; and, on a GOOD day, I just smile and shake my head (on a BAD day, I would like to SMACK 'em!!).

No.3: See, that "We are all hypocrites" bit, was very matter-of-factly----even though you said "we", seemingly to include yourself in the comment (maybe, to take a bit of the "sting" out of it)----and, it can come-across as not a very nice thing to say, because I can imagine there are ALOT of people who take GREAT care in what they say / post / opine, and they DO "rationally think through" their views. IMO, "rationally" is subjective, no.1; and, no.2, you seem to be, again, judging them in a way that you wish NOT to be judged.

I DO agree, however, that "opposing views... need to be shown to us so we can perfect our own"----that's why I find myself, again, shaking my head when an older person, seemingly, goes bonkers when a younger person says something that's really smart / thoughtful / whatever (as has been witnessed right here, on this very thread----but, at least, the person had a second thought and responded to you); because, what does it matter from whom the view came, just as long as we LEARN from it!! I mean, most of us, Aspies, LIVE to learn; but, at-the-same-time, alot of us don't want anyone telling us, we're wrong (my theory is, because we have had a life-time of people telling us we're wrong / stupid / weird / off / less-than / whatever, and have done everything we know to do, to prove otherwise, and are just absolutely FLOORED when, STILL, someone will tell us we're wrong [hint: there will ALWAYS, eventually, be someone who doesn't agree with you - that's life]), and that dichotomy is "interesting", to say the least.

I agree that we should be as lenient as possible with people----because, afterall, we ARE all human, and so-forth----and, that, in essence, we are all suffering from the same "can't see the forest, for the trees" "syndrome".

I also agree that "relativism is a key"----A key; but, not THEE key, in getting-along with people----and, I also agree that we should "constantly question ourselves", so that we can continue to grow.

As for your PS: See, you wouldn't have to, like, apologize, if you took more care in what you said (aka, not speaking so matter-of-factly). "Our views sometimes naturally contradict one another." was the BEST sentence, IMO, in your whole post. Why? Because you said "sometimes"; and, therefore, it didn't come-across as matter-of-factly. For the most part, IMO, as long as you leave the door open for "sometimes, it's NOT like this", you'll mostly have better luck with getting-along with people. Now, don't get me wrong, that's not a 100 percent GUARANTEE----goodness knows, I haven't been 100 percent successful with it----BUT, when one qualifies most of their statements, it, in my experience, increases their chances of someone NOT coming-after them; unless, of course, it's one of those people, like who we were talking about, before, that just like to pick fights, for their amusement or whatever.

As for your PPS: Have you considered that how YOU post, could possibly be playing a role in, when conversations you've had, devolve into arguments? Maybe, if you gave it more consideration, you wouldn't have to "retire from WP". Just a thought.....

I think, it's just rhetoric. Talk is cheap. People online are noncommittal, or will always choose the answer which requires the very least of them. People can afford to be flippant, because no sacrifice or obligation has been made, and would best spend their time productively.

(I have been on here, between getting up, a little too early to work, outside, and breakfast time, or when I was sick with sore throat, or waiting to be picked up, etc.)