Anti-intellectualism

[Verres]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Funny how no-one else agrees, including Drogue who knows me better than just about anyone else on this planet

As much as it may pain me to say this...I would have to agree with Whaleboy. He's not pretentious or arrogant. And as a reader of his literature, I would have to say it definitely has its merits.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Verres
And as a reader of his literature, I would have to say it definitely has its merits.

I really am going to have to read that, aren't I!

[Whaleboy]

That's worse. Besides, you can be both at the same time. In fact, most egotistical people are also arrogant, and vice versa.

Egotistical would mean self-obsessed, as opposed to selfish. If you want me to attempt to demolish the notion of altruism, I will gladly, but on another thread. Put simply, we are all self-obsessed. There is a clear difference between being concerned with oneself and thinking oneself is superior.

As much as it may pain me to say this...I would have to agree with Whaleboy. He's not pretentious or arrogant. And as a reader of his literature, I would have to say it definitely has its merits.

Ah! Why thankyou Verres!

I really am going to have to read that, aren't I!

If you can answer me these questions three... Can you cope with my verbosity? Can you cope with the products of my nice normal mind? And most importantly, can you read my handwriting?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Egotistical would mean self-obsessed, as opposed to selfish. If you want me to attempt to demolish the notion of altruism, I will gladly, but on another thread. Put simply, we are all self-obsessed. There is a clear difference between being concerned with oneself and thinking oneself is superior.

W00t Altruism is a contradiction in terms

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If you can answer me these questions three... Can you cope with my verbosity? Can you cope with the products of my nice normal mind? And most importantly, can you read my handwriting?

Maybe, I can't believe you just said that, and yes

[Whaleboy]

W00t Altruism is a contradiction in terms

Indeedy. Its easy to attack it from psychological, sociological and philosophical perspectives. As far as relativism will allow, it is a dead duck.

Maybe, I can't believe you just said that, and yes

My mind is nice and normal! I'm toying with the idea of a rebirth instead of suicide...

You don't need my permission to read Louise's xmas present! *ignores fact that he has it computer*. I'm putting some of my stuff up on a website soon hopefully.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
My mind is nice and normal! I'm toying with the idea of a rebirth instead of suicide...

Another contradiction Why rebirth, btw? In what sense (please don't say literal, I'm not sure you're mum could take it )

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You don't need my permission to read Louise's xmas present! *ignores fact that he has it computer*. I'm putting some of my stuff up on a website soon hopefully.

I know. I tried last time, read 3 words. Two of them were adjectives. Gave up. But I will persevere Besides, looks interesting

[Whaleboy]

Another contradiction Why rebirth, btw? In what sense (please don't say literal, I'm not sure you're mum could take it )

Rebirth is what happens when you consume a certain amount of LSD. I think its pretty close to comatose, it rewires your brain or something.

I know. I tried last time, read 3 words. Two of them were adjectives. Gave up. But I will persevere Besides, looks interesting

OK, I can email you the script if she agrees.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Rebirth is what happens when you consume a certain amount of LSD. I think its pretty close to comatose, it rewires your brain or something.

Doesn't sound too healthy to me. Maybe try the metaphorical complimentary therapy version instead?

(now this is what I call a threadjack )

[Whaleboy]

Doesn't sound too healthy to me.

But it's fun! Health is irrelevant!

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Hypothetical situation. A man is about to go to war, and is consulting me and a hawk. We will both try to convince the man who is considering war, and I will certainly try to pull him in a pacifist direction. If the other view prevails over mind in his judgment, I will concede defeat, since as far as I am concerned it is merely a conflict in views. I'll say what I have to say and leave it to others to implement it. "There will be an answer, let it be". His beliefs are equally valid, and what he does with them is his business not mine, though I am of course free to criticise. I will not go to war. That is the relativist talking. Because I hate war, which is an emotion, I would be an amount of emotional duress should I lose, but my relativism ultimately would win out and I would not impose. So in answer to your question, yes.

Why should the man in your hypothetical situation even start to think about consulting others (may it pacifists or hawks) when he already knows that all views (including his own) are equally valid? And then, even when he comes to the point that he's consulting two other guys -- how should he be able to decide between the views of a pacifist, and those of a hawk as long as they're both equally valid?

[Drogue]

Which one appeals to him more. The fact they are all equally valid does not mean that one or the other won't have better consequences for him. He simply chooses which he thinks is best for him, knowing that while to his subjective, one may seem better than the other, objectively they are both equally valid.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Drogue
Which one appeals to him more. The fact they are all equally valid does not mean that one or the other won't have better consequences for him. He simply chooses which he thinks is best for him, knowing that while to his subjective, one may seem better than the other, objectively they are both equally valid.

So if a guy thinks he'd get away with an act of murder, and he could get further advantages from this action - the relativist would walk away and think "well, I don't like it, but in the end I couldn't do anything since he did what he believes is best for him, and objectively that is as valid as any other view."?

[Drogue]

If the relativist knew about it, then he would turn him in, so the other guy wouldn't do it. But yes, the view to kill is ok is equally valid as the view to kill is not ok, objectively speaking, to a relativist. Subjectively, to us as humans, it is abhorrent, but it has as much logical validity as not killing.

[Whaleboy]

Why should the man in your hypothetical situation even start to think about consulting others

The man need not be a relativist. As far as we know, he is someone who represents a choice. Do I go left or right? Do I go up or down? He is pseudo-objective. He needs to be convinced one way or another.

And then, even when he comes to the point that he's consulting two other guys -- how should he be able to decide between the views of a pacifist, and those of a hawk as long as they're both equally valid?

Because he is not truly objective. He is coming to the table with a predisposition of his own, a view of his own, that one can play to, one can attempt to convince, or one can show that leads to a logical conclusion closer to one view or another. The man making the choice need not recognise that both points of views are equally valid and that his choice is subjective, though it would be nice . But like I said, to this example, it matters not.

So if a guy thinks he'd get away with an act of murder, and he could get further advantages from this action - the relativist would walk away and think "well, I don't like it, but in the end I couldn't do anything since he did what he believes is best for him, and objectively that is as valid as any other view."?

In terms of meta-ethical relativism (second order), broadly speaking you are correct. However, that is unworkable as a human, moral or political concept (first order). That leads to a kind of moral relativism that I term The Mill Limit, where Drogue is correct. It is important to make that distinction between first and second order theories, where the latter is merely the philosophy of first order theories. In terms of the second order, the ML is a relativism within a subjective human context of a society. *Whaleboy feels the urge to draw a fractal*

[GePap]

Since when does relativity spell equality?

All arguements can be equally valid only if you assume all to be equally meaningless: you can not have a positive equality- if there is a way to assign worth to an arguement, then inherently they can not be all equal. Now, how can you assign worth to arguements if there is no great, unlerlying absolute Morality? simple, by working out the rules of the social structure in which you are conducting your arguement, and the basic rules of discussion- for example, any arguement that is inheretly self-contradictory can not be equal to one which is not: no matter how better informed the self-contradictory arguement is its structure invalidates itself.

One big source of anti-intellectualism in the fiction that all views, specially in some topics, are equally valid- a nice democratic conceit since once evryone gets to vote, you assume their opinions all are of equal weight. But this is not so: everyone may have a choice, yes, but that does not mean their choices are all equally informed. The opinion of someone who has studied the history, culture, geography of an country is more valid when it comes to issues involving that country than those of someone who can't place the country on a map and is equally ignorant in all other aspects.

[Whaleboy]

Since when does relativity spell equality?

All arguements can be equally valid only if you assume all to be equally meaningless: you can not have a positive equality

That is correct.

if there is a way to assign worth to an arguement, then inherently they can not be all equal

One does not assign worth as in inherent property, rather an external perception, dependent upon interpretation and predisposition. In other words, everything is equally worthless and equally (in)valid in that respect, until we bung it into a context with an independent subjective (hence pseudo objective), which judges based upon its own subjectivity. In otherwords, it is an area where difference becomes a means by which we judge each other, kind of like a jigsaw puzzle. On their own, this fits with nothing, its just a lump of cardboard.

Now, how can you assign worth to arguements if there is no great, unlerlying absolute Morality?

Worth, as I established above, it contextual, and there are contexts within contexts, its like a giant fractal. And yes, for understanding, you need shared assumptions but they need not be absolute, merely contextual. The notion of an absolute required for this purpose is like the contrast between a small hammer, and an infinitely large pneumatic job. Transdimensional overkill (absolute=infinity).

One big source of anti-intellectualism in the fiction that all views, specially in some topics, are equally valid- a nice democratic conceit since once evryone gets to vote, you assume their opinions all are of equal weight. But this is not so: everyone may have a choice, yes, but that does not mean their choices are all equally informed. The opinion of someone who has studied the history, culture, geography of an country is more valid when it comes to issues involving that country than those of someone who can't place the country on a map and is equally ignorant in all other aspects.

That is true, but relativism only prescribes the out-of-context equal validity of a view. In the context of running a country, it is different, and relaltivism most certainly is no excuse for the democracy fallacy, since relativism says nothing of the right of a view to be listened to, since that is down to one subjective's choice to do so.

[reds4ever]

A thread on Anti-intellectualism is now on its tenth page..


oh, the irony....

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The man need not be a relativist. As far as we know, he is someone who represents a choice. Do I go left or right? Do I go up or down? He is pseudo-objective. He needs to be convinced one way or another.

on what basis does a person who considers all views equal make a choice from?

yah ok relativism is really gay

[Whaleboy]

on what basis does a person who considers all views equal make a choice from?

yah ok relativism is really gay

Read what I previously wrote. Considering all views equally valid need not mean we all have to like them all to the same degree. I prefer pistacio nuts to hazelnuts, therefore I choose pistacios when given the choice, but that does not mean that I somehow think that hazelnuts are somehow inferior.

A thread on Anti-intellectualism is now on its tenth page..


oh, the irony....

. Thank yavoon for that . This is my longest thread!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Read what I previously wrote. Considering all views equally valid need not mean we all have to like them all to the same degree. I prefer pistacio nuts to hazelnuts, therefore I choose pistacios when given the choice, but that does not mean that I somehow think that hazelnuts are somehow inferior.



. Thank yavoon for that . This is my longest thread!

yes but what valid reasons do u have to choose between? or is the difference between blue and green and genocide and aid essentially made on the same grounds?

giving urself the ability to choose w/o distinction does a nice hurdle of one thing but does nothing for any validity or sanity in any of ur choices.

ur thanking me for the length of the thread? should we count how many posts made by whom? or are u just in general thinking ur being really smart and sly by ur infectious use of more inane smilies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is true, but relativism only prescribes the out-of-context equal validity of a view. In the context of running a country, it is different, and relaltivism most certainly is no excuse for the democracy fallacy, since relativism says nothing of the right of a view to be listened to, since that is down to one subjective's choice to do so.

So you agree with me...

one problem with intellectualism, arguing with those who agree with one.

[Whaleboy]

yes but what valid reasons do u have to choose between? or is the difference between blue and green and genocide and aid essentially made on the same grounds?

Sort of. Contextual validity. In a certian context, something may be right or wrong, but not absolutely.

does nothing for any validity or sanity in any of ur choices.

That is true. The validity of our choices are equally meaningless. It is a consequence of relativism that objective morality cannot exist. I am find with that!

are u just in general thinking ur being really smart and sly by ur infectious use of more inane smilies.

You got my number!

one problem with intellectualism, arguing with those who agree with one.

True, but its so much fun!!!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Sort of. Contextual validity. In a certian context, something may be right or wrong, but not absolutely.

I dont see how relativism holds contextual validity. since "contextual" merely implies a set of circumstances that inherently helps to define what your trying.

but even if u define the context as accurately as possible if u dare step into giving even the most convoluted context of an act(for morality talk) validity u rape relativity because then given that context the answer to the moral question is always the same. and is not relative.

[GePap]

yavoon: think of it in sports terms:

Each and every sport has internal rules, rules that govern it and make it a coherent activity- now, these "rules" are completely valid within the context of the game, thus allowing one to argue for example, which play should have been made, which player benched, so forth and so on..in reality thought, those game rules hold no value or meaning outside of the game, not even in other sports: the offsides rule means nothing to golfers even if it means a lot to soccer players.

The thing is to relaize society, that whiche xists todays, is in itself a game, which is nothing more than a construct of specific rules that define actions.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap
yavoon: think of it in sports terms:

Each and every sport has internal rules, rules that govern it and make it a coherent activity- now, these "rules" are completely valid within the context of the game, thus allowing one to argue for example, which play should have been made, which player benched, so forth and so on..in reality thought, those game rules hold no value or meaning outside of the game, not even in other sports: the offsides rule means nothing to golfers even if it means a lot to soccer players.

The thing is to relaize society, that whiche xists todays, is in itself a game, which is nothing more than a construct of specific rules that define actions.

omg I lost all I wrote, faggiest thing ever.

well anyway. lets say u ask "is it ok for a player to go out of bounds." and I say "I dont konw, give me more context." so u then proceed to give me the game, the time, the pertinent rules the players. regardless of the length or breadth of ur context the fact that a definitive answer comes out the back is an afront to relativism.

same w/ morality. if I say "is killing ok." and u say "it depends." so then I tell u the context. in gross detail, specific ppl in specific places at specific times. the emotions intents and knowledge of everyone involved. if after all that context u then come back w/ a definite answer to whether it was right or wrong. relativity is gayed out.

is killing ok in the general is not in substance different from is killing ok in 1945. if as long as both have definite answers then relativity is stuck.

[GePap]

well anyway. lets say u ask "is it ok for a player to go out of bounds." and I say "I dont konw, give me more context." so u then proceed to give me the game, the time, the pertinent rules the players. regardless of the length or breadth of ur context the fact that a definitive answer comes out the back is an afront to relativism.

nope. First of all, the question "is it OK for a player to go out of bounds is utterly vague"- OK? OK HOW?

So lets say you ask "was it a wise move for the player to go out of bounds at this point of the game given the position of the teams, their relative scores, the strenght of each team", then you can come up with an answer that is correct within that context.

The world remain relative becuase that answer is correct ONLY for that one single point in space-time, and not for any other.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

well anyway. lets say u ask "is it ok for a player to go out of bounds." and I say "I dont konw, give me more context." so u then proceed to give me the game, the time, the pertinent rules the players. regardless of the length or breadth of ur context the fact that a definitive answer comes out the back is an afront to relativism.

nope. First of all, the question "is it OK for a player to go out of bounds is utterly vague"- OK? OK HOW?

So lets say you ask "was it a wise move for the player to go out of bounds at this point of the game given the position of the teams, their relative scores, the strenght of each team", then you can come up with an answer that is correct within that context.

The world remain relative becuase that answer is correct ONLY for that one single point in space-time, and not for any other.

k hehe after all that messup. having the answer to the question differ w/ time or space does not inherit it relativistic properties.

ie if an answer is yes now, but no 5 seconds from now. and accordingly changes in any convoluted pattern u so choose it is still not relativistic.

[GePap]

Originally posted by yavoon


wo

[Whaleboy]

k hehe after all that messup. having the answer to the question differ w/ time or space does not inherit it relativistic properties.

The notion of relativistic properties is somewhat flawed. Relativism is itself a consequence of occams razor, one of the few bits of useful deduced reasoning!

ie if an answer is yes now, but no 5 seconds from now. and accordingly changes in any convoluted pattern u so choose it is still not relativistic.

You are coming at it from a Kantian perspective, but you are saying that the conclusion of a context must thereby remain absolute given qualitative logic supporting it, which does not preclude the possibility that as the premises change, so must the conclusion per context? Thats fine were it not for a little tiny thing called logic .

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The notion of relativistic properties is somewhat flawed. Relativism is itself a consequence of occams razor, one of the few bits of useful deduced reasoning!



You are coming at it from a Kantian perspective, but you are saying that the conclusion of a context must thereby remain absolute given qualitative logic supporting it, which does not preclude the possibility that as the premises change, so must the conclusion per context? Thats fine were it not for a little tiny thing called logic .

actually premises are contained rather easily. it is simply saying that given enuff information that the answer becomes definite.

for an example lets say cultural relativism which comes from different things thatn what might be termed "universal attributes" of a certain act. and includes cultural proclivities. cultural relativism still fails to be relativism because being placed inside a certain culture w/ its specific premises there comes out a definitive answer.

lets say u live in a tribe in some weird place and the tradition is to kill the first born child if it is a girl. cultural relativism would have that if u dont kill the child then u r WRONG. immoral. unfortunately this is not what most relativists hold onto as their version of relativism.

relativism holds that the answer to the question exists outside the phrasing of the question. and thusly everything is more or less useless.