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!

[BeBMan]

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.

[BeBMan]

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.