problem with philosophers
The problem with philosophers
(in response to this
1) The insincere open mind. Often they declare they have an open mind on an issue but in reality don't. There are a number of ways one can achieve this (maybe the other points will reflect this). One is to create a line of argument you know you will reject (potentially for an arbitrary reason and encourage them to debate it as opposed to any other.
2) Focusing on a specific argument that has no real life impact, as if it DOES have a real life impact. For example a debate about semantics or one about some thought experiment that fundamentally cannot exist. This reflects in either a misuse of their well argued conclusion or leaving others confused constantly wondering if there is some secret practical application (as opposed to breaching some social convention by wasting their time).
3) From wider evidence they believe they know something and can’t understand why you would ignore wider evidence in order to have a specific debate.
4) Hypocrisy - they argue a moral position and then don’t live up to it. Since their positions are more idealistic generally they are also more hypocritical.
5) Not treating the other side as an equal in the debate and seeing their debating style as a sign of inferiority
6) failure to integrate other fields of knowledge as suggested above
7) being too deep in one's field to properly engage with someone outside of it. Ie making arguments that have no validity or meaning to the other party and which thus serve no purpose.
(in response to this
1) The insincere open mind. Often they declare they have an open mind on an issue but in reality don't. There are a number of ways one can achieve this (maybe the other points will reflect this). One is to create a line of argument you know you will reject (potentially for an arbitrary reason and encourage them to debate it as opposed to any other.
2) Focusing on a specific argument that has no real life impact, as if it DOES have a real life impact. For example a debate about semantics or one about some thought experiment that fundamentally cannot exist. This reflects in either a misuse of their well argued conclusion or leaving others confused constantly wondering if there is some secret practical application (as opposed to breaching some social convention by wasting their time).
3) From wider evidence they believe they know something and can’t understand why you would ignore wider evidence in order to have a specific debate.
4) Hypocrisy - they argue a moral position and then don’t live up to it. Since their positions are more idealistic generally they are also more hypocritical.
5) Not treating the other side as an equal in the debate and seeing their debating style as a sign of inferiority
6) failure to integrate other fields of knowledge as suggested above
7) being too deep in one's field to properly engage with someone outside of it. Ie making arguments that have no validity or meaning to the other party and which thus serve no purpose.
posted by Genius at 9:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home