|
glowing-fish posted:But I wanted to skip ahead to a more common problem that is confronting a lot of us today. How do we deal with the idea that "every argument is valid and should be judged on its own merits", when there are so many bad faith arguments, and when we have so much information coming in constantly, and insufficient time to analyze every possible viewpoint on its merits? "They said Galileo was wrong" is one of the biggest clichés possible, and it brings up the memory of one of the turning points that led to the Enlightenment. The problem is that everyone who is selling Shark Cartilage as a cure for cancer thinks that they are Galileo. I think to a certain extent ambiguity of language is generating that seeming contradiction. "Argument" in the sense you're using it encompases both attempts to get to the truth of a matter through logic and observation and persuasive rhetoric, which is just about the opposite of that. Sorting the good poo poo from the bullshit is not only something consistent with Enlightenment values but also a task we have in common with the thinkers of the day. glowing-fish posted:I have to do something that seems bad to the Enlightenment: use my emotion to analyze the overall timbre of an argument, rather than try to look at it logically, piece by piece. I'm not sure why you'd conclude this is your only option in the face of an argument-rich world, however. That is indeed being a bad Enlightenment thinker and a ton of propaganda directed at you is going to have the feels you emotionally interpret as right - that's the whole point of propagada. Instead, it seems like the more Enlightenment option would be to reserve judgement on arguments that aren't important enough to merit looking at through an objective lens. quote:I don't have an answer for that, but in my practical, every day life, I have to "censor" ideas, on some level, because I know that people arguing in bad faith can present ideas in a seemingly rational way, in order to put forward an argument that does not really make sense. I also know that they can just make me play "whack-a-mole", having to expend mental energy to disprove misleading or dubious claims until I can't think straight about anything. I have to do something that seems bad to the Enlightenment: use my emotion to analyze the overall timbre of an argument, rather than try to look at it logically, piece by piece. Looking at this specifically, for instance. The vast majority of claims we're bombarded with, whether we agree with them emotionally or not, are not even coherant enough to be wrong. The content of the speech is either purely emotional or it's rhetorical posturing. I don't think any of the Enlightenment thinkers, time traveling to 2019, would assert that you need to waste energy evaluating it all so long as you do spend some energy evaluating the things you take to heart. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Mar 19, 2019 |
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:54 |
|