Combatting Newspeak

[plato85]

George Orwell - “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten." 

 

I am learning that most of the disagreements people have come down to definitions and word associations. Words have different meanings to different people. You will find this regularly occurring in debates on this forum.

Molyneux has described peoples outlooks as being built up of words like a fairy-tale, so when we try to reason with an irrational outlook words have no impact, or our arguments may even drive them further into irrationality because the words we use are associated with evil and we confirm their biases.

We've been debating 'arguing with irrationality'. Another way of putting 'irrationality' may be the sub-conscious mind. When we tip-toe around 'triggering' people, we're not talking about their rational thoughts, we're talking about emotion. We may find that in an irrational person they lack consciousness, or maybe they have a strong subconsciousness? If we're arguing with irrational people I suppose we have to make emotional arguments?

What George Orwell was describing by the word 'Newspeak' is also known to us philosophers as 'deconstructionism'. Deconstructionists try to break down the meanings of words to give a new meanings and associations. This can be done though 'priming'. 

Priming is a psychological tool to make people associate something with something else. Pavlov's dog associates a bell with food. We associate coleacola with cord like cold and refreshing. 

I am noticing this happening more and more.

Words like 'morality' used to mean someone's whole set of values and virtues that they live by. Now it means someones sense of right and wrong in conduct with other people. A much diminished definition.

Evil used to mean not virtuous, now it means some kind of supernatural spirit.

Fascist used to mean someone who supported Mussolini. Now Nazis are fascists.

People associate Hitler with far-right even though his policies were socialist. Churchill fought off national socialism, and he was right wing and conservative. By today's standards Churchill is far right and therefore if he were around today he might be associated with 'fascism'.

People associate immigration policy Nazism and genocide, even though before WWII every country other than the Wiemar republic had strong borders.

No one can determine what the alt-right is, the mainstream media have an agenda control the word 'alt-right' to mean a neo-nazis movement, but the alt-right think they're a libertarian movement.

Etc...

My question is how do keep track of these changing definitions, and how do we talk to people with those porn-modern definitions and word associations?

How to we combat newspeak/ deconstructionism?

[_LiveFree_]

Omg. This isn't complicated. You TELL THE TRUTH. No matter how uncomfortable or unpopular. The answer to all this is courage, not some philosophical word play or psychological mind game. 

[ofd]

Quote

but the alt-right think they're a libertarian movement.

Errrm, no?

 

[RichardY]

17 hours ago, plato85 said:

My question is how do keep track of these changing definitions, and how do we talk to people with those porn-modern definitions and word associations?

How to we combat newspeak/ deconstructionism?

"Porn-modern"? Lot of talk of Nazis, Dogs, Fascist, Fairies etc; kind of dark imagery

[plato85]

Hahaha. OK.

But the truth doesn't impact on these people. And we've decided that the problem is at a subconscious level.

these people are primed to yell 'nazi' when they hear 'Trump'.

Theyre yelling 'fascist' at free speech rallies.

[shirgall]

Insist on establishing definitions in an honest debate.

[_LiveFree_]

Why is it hard to accept that some people are just lost and unrecoverable? 

[Notsuper]

I don't think 'combat' is the right word - even if there isn't some plot to replace all meaningful language with newspeak, it seems to be the nature of language to change with the times - with that in mind, is seems more accurate to say 'adapt'. You need to make it a non-factor. To me, the obvious answer is just to confirm definitions with people as you converse with them. What sense does it make to assume you're both using the same definitions if definitions are constantly changing and the same words mean different things to different people? If you're seeking the truth, isn't it better to judge someone by what they mean, rather than what you think they mean? Obviously, you're stuck working with what you think they mean, but by making sure you're talking about the same thing (instead of assuming so), you'll get a lot closer to knowing what they actually think.

As someone said in another thread...

8 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

as all skilled philosophers know, the first thing to clear up are Definitions.

Though I had not applied it to philosophers specifically, I have held the sentiment for a while now, that reconciling definitions is an important step in any sort of debate. I was glad to see it echoed here.

 

4 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Omg. This isn't complicated. You TELL THE TRUTH. No matter how uncomfortable or unpopular. The answer to all this is courage, not some philosophical word play or psychological mind game. 

If I've been raised to think that apples are pears (whatever the reason, it doesn't matter), and you approach me (while I stand around with a 'pear' in hand) and ask for an apple, how do you think I'm going to respond?

If you want a more realistic and relevant example, look at your exchange with DaVinci in the 'Arguing with Irrationality' thread. The entire thing could've easily been cleared up if either he had explicitly asked if you believed that a single show of irrationality is enough to define someone as completely incapable of rational thought, or if you had clarified what you meant when you said that five minutes is enough to determine if someone is irrational (pretty vague). I don't say this to attack you, but I hope you can see how he might've seen this as you avoiding the question yourself. Honestly, it seemed that way to me too, but I also considered that you might have missed the alternate meanings of what you said, or what he was trying to ask.

 

14 minutes ago, shirgall said:

Insist on establishing definitions in an honest debate.

I type out that long rant and you say this just as I'm about to post it all. It makes me facepalm, but I've put too much time and thought into this not to post it now. It's good to see yet another person say something along those lines in a single line, though.

[plato85]

Because Mankind has gone through dark ages and renessence. Civilisation rises and falls over and over. It must be possible for people to be switched on and off.

Because an authoritarian population leads to an authoritarian government, and there's people rioting against free speech, and protesting election results, and calling themselves liberals.

[_LiveFree_]

You've made a serious oversight. Can you tell me what it is?

[RichardY]

42 minutes ago, plato85 said:

Hahaha. OK.

But the truth doesn't impact on these people. And we've decided that the problem is at a subconscious level.

these people are primed to yell 'nazi' when they hear 'Trump'.

Theyre yelling 'fascist' at free speech rallies.

The truth can get you killed, but so can lack of truth. "We've decided" I think some of the conflict involves the unconscious. ""A cellular peptide cake, with mint frosting.""Kills them, Kills them before its too late". I wonder how much that Korean fellow listens to Evidence "You gotta give him credit"(Trump).

"I want the Truth!""You can't handle the Truth!"

[plato85]

Countries get the government they deserve. That means everyone is responsible to at least try to stand up for what they believe.

 

Livefree - I don't know, but you might argue that it's the children that are switched off and on... then I would argue that the adults have to be switched on to bring up enlightened kids.

[_LiveFree_]

People are born switched on.  Switching off a human takes years of psychological abuse. That's why peaceful parenting gives rise to those who will not submit to tyranny. No need to "be enlightened" whatever that means, just not violent.

 

You're asking a question in very large terms. You need to be asking this on a personal level. In the end, it's all person to person. 

[plato85]

As long as people have brains and they can think it's worth trying. I'm not resigned to defeat. Individual parenting is hardly going to bring about a renessance in a world where families are broken down and schools are actively working against students. How does a renessance occur unless we try to influence everyone? It's happened before.

Im not sure if I'm asking this question on large terms or the smallest possible terms. If irrational people have their subconscious mind working against them how do we appeal to their subconscious?

[_LiveFree_]

Oh man. You are exactly what you're asking about. Your mind is switched off to the reality of it all. And you are projecting onto the world that which you are experiencing within. 

You don't save people. They save themselves. You are looking for someone else to say the right words to you. Save your time, they won't come. You're ready to wake up or you are not. 

[_LiveFree_]

3 hours ago, Notsuper said:

 

If I've been raised to think that apples are pears (whatever the reason, it doesn't matter), and you approach me (while I stand around with a 'pear' in hand) and ask for an apple, how do you think I'm going to respond?

If you want a more realistic and relevant example, look at your exchange with DaVinci in the 'Arguing with Irrationality' thread. The entire thing could've easily been cleared up if either he had explicitly asked if you believed that a single show of irrationality is enough to define someone as completely incapable of rational thought, or if you had clarified what you meant when you said that five minutes is enough to determine if someone is irrational (pretty vague). I don't say this to attack you, but I hope you can see how he might've seen this as you avoiding the question yourself. Honestly, it seemed that way to me too, but I also considered that you might have missed the alternate meanings of what you said, or what he was trying to ask.

So we disagree on that. I was very clear. He was trying to muddy the water. Care to elaborate on why you think I was avoiding?

[plato85]

4 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Why is it hard to accept that some people are just lost and unrecoverable? 

 

55 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Oh man. You are exactly what you're asking about. Your mind is switched off to the reality of it all. And you are projecting onto the world that which you are experiencing within. 

You don't save people. They save themselves. You are looking for someone else to say the right words to you. Save your time, they won't come. You're ready to wake up or you are not. 

 

You're up to something strange. You're trying to stifle this debate for some reason.

Asking how to connect to someone irrational is an open question, and you're trying to spin it so that it's closed minded to think that I can, and supposedly it's open minded to think that I can't. What are you up to?

[_LiveFree_]

1 minute ago, plato85 said:

 

 

You're up to something strange. You're trying to stifle this debate for some reason.

Asking how to connect to someone irrational is an open question, and you're trying to spin it so that it's closed minded to think that I can, and supposedly it's open minded to think that I can't. What are you up to?

It isn't spin if I've made a compelling argument which you continue to ignore. Go find the argument, restate it and then tell me where I went wrong. Otherwise you're now projecting onto me. 

[plato85]

You're trolling LiveFree.

Is it hard to admit you're the one who's closed minded? You're closed to the possibility that irrational people can see reason. I asked an open minded question and you're trying to tell me I'm closed minded about the possibility that they can't. 

[_LiveFree_]

4 hours ago, plato85 said:

You're trolling LiveFree.

Is it hard to admit you're the one who's closed minded? You're closed to the possibility that irrational people can see reason. I asked an open minded question and you're trying to tell me I'm closed minded about the possibility that they can't. 

You're stating nonsense. IRRATIONAL people BY DEFINITION cannot see reason. 

Who's trolling whom?

Also, you have still not responded to my argument.  It's also interesting that you'd say I'm the one who's trolling when I've been signed up here for 4 years (been listening longer than that), yet you have a sign up date that is less than a month old. I don't think this is the path you want to go down.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Discontinue being rational when you've identified the other person refuses to be rational.

[shirgall]

18 hours ago, Notsuper said:

I type out that long rant and you say this just as I'm about to post it all. It makes me facepalm, but I've put too much time and thought into this not to post it now. It's good to see yet another person say something along those lines in a single line, though.

Sorry.

It is, however, something we've had to do in this forum a lot. Often we discover that the differences in position come down to differences in the meaning of words we use, and the argument would escalate when someone would say something that someone else would interpret differently.

[plato85]

Sorry Livefree. I wasn't understanding your argument, I think I get it now. I thought you were trying to stop the debate.

Interestingly it might come down to the premise of this debate - words have different meanings.

13 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

IRRATIONAL people BY DEFINITION cannot see reason. 

I agree with the definition, but I take it to mean something very different to you.

Irrational people by definition cannot see reason, but I don't think anyone uses this word in an absolute way.

Humans are incredibly complicated. When we describe someone we use words in a broad way to describe their character traits. There's not much we can describe about people that is absolute, everything about people fits on a spectrum. We can say someone is happy, that doesn't mean they're in ecstasy. We can say someone is closed minded, incapable of changing their mind. When we say someone is greedy, that doesn't mean they're always greedy in every situation. We can say someone is irrational, that doesn't mean they're completely incapable of mathematics.

Humans are highly versatile, and our personalities are constantly changing and adapting.

We don't describe humans in objective terms. That doesn't make me a relativist.

 

13 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Also, you have still not responded to my argument.

Please make it clear which argument you mean.

[_LiveFree_]

17 hours ago, plato85 said:

Sorry Livefree. I wasn't understanding your argument, I think I get it now. I thought you were trying to stop the debate.

Interestingly it might come down to the premise of this debate - words have different meanings.

I agree with the definition, but I take it to mean something very different to you.

Irrational people by definition cannot see reason, but I don't think anyone uses this word in an absolute way.

Humans are incredibly complicated. When we describe someone we use words in a broad way to describe their character traits. There's not much we can describe about people that is absolute, everything about people fits on a spectrum. We can say someone is happy, that doesn't mean they're in ecstasy. We can say someone is closed minded, incapable of changing their mind. When we say someone is greedy, that doesn't mean they're always greedy in every situation. We can say someone is irrational, that doesn't mean they're completely incapable of mathematics.

Humans are highly versatile, and our personalities are constantly changing and adapting.

We don't describe humans in objective terms. That doesn't make me a relativist.

 

Please make it clear which argument you mean.

nope you still don't get it. 

 

I'll go through the effort of restating my argument for you, but only if you answer the following question with a yes or no. Is there someone important to you, like a close friend, significant other or family member, who's mind you have tried to change but have failed?

[plato85]

Yes.

[_LiveFree_]

21 hours ago, plato85 said:

Yes.

On the one hand I really appreciate this. By keeping this answer to one word, it tells me you're serious about this topic. On the other, why would you go and post in the other thread? I'm going to ignore those posts because to do otherwise would be to backtrack. If you want to make those statements here that you made there that is fine, but this two threaded back and forth is silly. What it shows is that there is some quiet desperation on your part, which, coupled with the above answer, I fully understand. You mention in the other thread a friend, your brother, and your mother. 

So that you know I'm not trolling you, I'll tell you right now that I will not ask for any further details related to this. That is another talk altogether and would completely muddy this conversation if we tried to go that route.

In the other thread, I was the first to answer you. I was literally post #2. How long before you replied to me? It took 31 posts. Why? Because it wasn't the answer you were looking for. You thanked Tyler for posting the video "The Death of Reason: Why People Listen to Reason and Evidence". Did you watch the video before thanking him? Because the answer Stef gives is a 30 minute in-depth version of the answer I gave. You could have asked me a question about my reply. When you finally responded to me, it was mockingly...

Quote

Deep stuff Livefree. Calling Dr F!

 

I was brought up with political discussions at the dinner table where I learnt that political discussion was the most interesting discussion and battle of wits. I thought this was interesting and normal, while other families were talking about their days and the monotonous things they do. I've continued that love of discussing ideas, but my ideas have come a long way from the PC ideas of my Mum and Brother and now I have a very strange relationship with them. I don't know how else to relate to them other than the discussion of politics and ideas, that's how we grew up.

I guess if I could figure out how to switch on someones rationality I could have a normal relationship with my Mum.

 

....and then there was this...

Quote

I just got access to THE BRONZE FILES! and by chance the first FILE I picked addresses this discussion. It's called 'Libertopia Speech Rehersal: Take 1'

The general premise is that the best way to influence people who are closed to reason is to live the good life, lead by example, and everyone will want to come to our side. His arguments are Freudian, he argues that most peoples outlook are built up of words like-tales and that can't be penetrated by words. The subconsciousness that needs to be penetrated with reality.

He describes living the good life similar to Rand. He lives his life by his own standard and doesn't let people with standards he deeply disagrees with into his life, and he doesn't let them get him down.

And yet here you are, still, trying desperately to use intellect in place of courage. Philosophy is like nutrition, you can have all the best nutritional information in the world, but it won't matter if you don't put down the doughnut and eat something green. You can have all the best philosophy in the world, but if you don't have the courage to tell the truth to yourself and the people closest to you, you have nothing. In fact, it's worse than nothing, because now you'll likely go around telling everyone about this great philosophy and yet you'll be completely miserable because you haven't applied it to yourself. The motto of Freedomain Radio is "The philosophy of PERSONAL and political freedom." Stefan was precise when putting the "personal" before "political". 

You're trying to change others when you haven't even changed yourself. They see that. They know that. And it is why all of your efforts have been in vain. Changed yourself how? I'm going to quote a chapter from Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love by Stefan Molyneux:

Quote

FAMILY AND HISTORY (pg 197)

When we interact with our families – particularly as adult children – there is an essential aspect of curiosity that we constantly strive to avoid. The unhappy and insecure man says: “She must treat me well!” The happy and confident man says: “I wonder if she will treat me well?” The adult child, with regards to his parents, knows the answer already – in his very bones. The simple question that the adult child must ask is: “Did they treat me well?” If this question seems too hard to answer, because of a blankness in your history, or an excess of propaganda from your family, then you can answer it even more simply. “When I see their phone number on my call display, how do I feel?” There is nothing that we need to be taught about how our parents treated us when we were children. There is no possibility of knowledge about another human being that you do not already possess in relation to your parents (and your siblings, of course, but we shall focus on your parents for the moment). It is a fundamental fact of human physiology that our deepest emotions are immune to propaganda, just as physical pain is immune to propaganda. You can be told over and over again as a child that jamming a knitting needle through your hand will not hurt, but rather will feel wonderful. You may even believe this in your conscious mind, but your hand knows better. When you do stick that knitting needle through your hand, no amount of propaganda or mythology can prevent the agony you will experience. This is why we use anaesthetic in surgery, not storytelling. This is why Novocain is a drug, not a mythology. Most of our emotions result from our thoughts – but our deepest and truest feelings accumulate from years of experience. These feelings cannot be eradicated or changed, any more than our experience can be eradicated or changed. Learning another language as an adult is a conscious decision – learning language as a toddler is an unconscious accumulation of experience and innate ability. These deepest emotions occur in the body – and the body is immune to propaganda. This is why control and rejection of the body is so essential to all exploitive power structures – think of the hostility that most religions have towards the flesh. Since our deepest emotions cannot be eradicated through propaganda, propaganda must instead focus on the creation and maintenance of psychological defences. Think of what happens when your phone rings, you look at the call display, and you see: YOUR PARENTS! What probably happens is that you experience an initial sinking sensation, followed by a strong desire to avoid picking up the phone. You roll your eyes, check your watch, figure out how much time you can waste talking to them, and generally feel the exact opposite of enthusiasm. Then, of course, you feel guilt, and chastise yourself for your ingratitude and lack of consideration for their feelings. They did so much for me, they ask for so little, they’re always concerned about me, it costs me so little to make them happy, etc. etc

The picture of your mother’s long-suffering face will rise in your mind, and you imagine her sadness as she slowly puts down the phone, feeling rejected. You imagine your father’s irritation when your mother complains that, “She never seems to pick up the phone any more when I call – I’m sure she’s just busy, but…” You feel – projected into the future – a growing unease about the everincreasing emotional cost you will incur if you continue to avoid their calls. “Might as well get it over with now,” you say to yourself, reaching for the receiver – and then, to avoid the guilt of that feeling, you pump some enthusiastic shine into your voice as you answer. After the initial exchange of pleasantries, you feel a rising tension and boredom, because you have nothing to say to your mother. She talks about this or that, asks you some questions which only elicit monosyllabic responses from you… Then, the awkward silence descends… You begin to tell a story; she murmurs some noncommittal responses. She begins telling a story about someone that you barely know, and you attempt to show interest. She asks you questions which are annoying, because they’re manipulative (“Have you met anyone nice recently?”) or unanswerable (“What will you buy your nephew for his baptism?”). You realize how little of your life you can actually share with your mother, and for the millionth time you wonder how someone could have become so old and remained so uninteresting. You also wonder what pleasure she could possibly derive from these forced and empty interactions. She must be taking some pleasure in calling you – otherwise why would she? – but you can’t imagine what that pleasure could possibly be. You sigh, listening to her tinny voice, and wonder when the last time was that you had a problem in your life, and really wanted to call your mother for advice. Never, comes back the immediate answer… Then, your mother says she is going to put your father on the phone, and you scrabble to find an excuse that will not offend him too much – and then you remember that you have used up all your excuses over the last month or two, and that if you try to make up another one, he surely will get offended. And so you swallow, roll your eyes, and say: “Hi, Dad!” And you know, deep in your bones, that this crushingly dull and awkward ritual will be repeated many more hundreds of times in your lifetime – and that the outcome will be exactly the same each time. After you are finally able to get off the phone, you feel empty and a little depressed – but also relieved, because you know that you have bought a certain amount of guilt-free time away from your parents. Then, you remember that Christmas is coming up, and your depression yawns to swallow you whole…

And two very teachable call-in conversations:

 

You're looking for quick solutions to a problem of which you are denying the depths of. In other words, by being so forthright, by being precise and terse, by challenging your assumptions (which btw, how do you come to a philosophy forum with questions and then deny out of hand the answers when you don't get what you want?), I'm trying to shake you loose out of the tree.

When you've confronted the irrationality in yourself, then you will have the courage to confront irrationality in those closest to you. Once through that, taking on the world's irrationality becomes an easy joy. You see me as trying to throw obstacles to trip you up. Stop. Observe. Think. Those obstacles are your real path. I'm showing you EXACTLY what you are looking for. But it means letting go of the illusions you've been holding onto, specifically about yourself and in your personal relationships. "People" are the "world". How are you supposed to change them when you can't even adjust yourself to align with what you preach?

[plato85]

 

On 01/05/2017 at 6:28 AM, _LiveFree_ said:

On the one hand I really appreciate this. By keeping this answer to one word, it tells me you're serious about this topic. On the other, why would you go and post in the other thread? I'm going to ignore those posts because to do otherwise would be to backtrack. If you want to make those statements here that you made there that is fine, but this two threaded back and forth is silly. What it shows is that there is some quiet desperation on your part, which, coupled with the above answer, I fully understand. You mention in the other thread a friend, your brother, and your mother. 

So that you know I'm not trolling you, I'll tell you right now that I will not ask for any further details related to this. That is another talk altogether and would completely muddy this conversation if we tried to go that route.

In the other thread, I was the first to answer you. I was literally post #2. How long before you replied to me? It took 31 posts. Why? Because it wasn't the answer you were looking for. You thanked Tyler for posting the video "The Death of Reason: Why People Listen to Reason and Evidence". Did you watch the video before thanking him? Because the answer Stef gives is a 30 minute in-depth version of the answer I gave. You could have asked me a question about my reply. When you finally responded to me, it was mockingly...

....and then there was this...

And yet here you are, still, trying desperately to use intellect in place of courage. Philosophy is like nutrition, you can have all the best nutritional information in the world, but it won't matter if you don't put down the doughnut and eat something green. You can have all the best philosophy in the world, but if you don't have the courage to tell the truth to yourself and the people closest to you, you have nothing. In fact, it's worse than nothing, because now you'll likely go around telling everyone about this great philosophy and yet you'll be completely miserable because you haven't applied it to yourself. The motto of Freedomain Radio is "The philosophy of PERSONAL and political freedom." Stefan was precise when putting the "personal" before "political". 

You're trying to change others when you haven't even changed yourself. They see that. They know that. And it is why all of your efforts have been in vain. Changed yourself how? I'm going to quote a chapter from Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love by Stefan Molyneux:

And two very teachable call-in conversations:

You're looking for quick solutions to a problem of which you are denying the depths of. In other words, by being so forthright, by being precise and terse, by challenging your assumptions (which btw, how do you come to a philosophy forum withquestions and then deny out of hand the answers when you don't get what you want?), I'm trying to shake you loose out of the tree.

When you've confronted the irrationality in yourself, then you will have the courage to confront irrationality in those closest to you. Once through that, taking on the world's irrationality becomes an easy joy. You see me as trying to throw obstacles to trip you up. Stop. Observe. Think. Those obstacles are your real path. I'm showing you EXACTLY what you are looking for. But it means letting go of the illusions you've been holding onto, specifically about yourself and in your personal relationships. "People" are the "world". How are you supposed to change them when you can't even adjust yourself to align with what you preach?

 

Troll was the wrong word to describe you. Cynic is a better word. Cynicism is a philosophy that ends philosophy.

I find your line of argument draining, but not for the Freudian reasons you think. Your line of argument takes energy out of the discussion and gets people sidetracked.

Philosophy is a light. As you understand the world better you can see what's happening around you. When I ask a question about the world I'm shining a light out to try to see the shapes that make reality. If I'm not satisfied with the answers then I'll keep asking questions until I find an answer that helps.

You don't try to answer my questions. I shine a light out and you shine a light in my face and say the problems are with me. How am I supposed to see out when you're directing your torch at me? If I ask how can I argue with irrationality, you say I can't. If I ask why not, you ask why do I want to? If I ask how I can change people, you say hang around different people. If I ask how I can change the world, you tell me to adjust myself to the world. Nothing can ever be achieved by this line of argument. I'm having more success in finding answers in the

You're looking for quick solutions to a problem of which you are denying the depths of. In other words, by being so forthright, by being precise and terse, by challenging your assumptions (which btw, how do you come to a philosophy forum with questions and then deny out of hand the answers when you don't get what you want?), I'm trying to shake you loose out of the tree.

When you've confronted the irrationality in yourself, then you will have the courage to confront irrationality in those closest to you. Once through that, taking on the world's irrationality becomes an easy joy. You see me as trying to throw obstacles to trip you up. Stop. Observe. Think. Those obstacles are your real path. I'm showing you EXACTLY what you are looking for. But it means letting go of the illusions you've been holding onto, specifically about yourself and in your personal relationships. "People" are the "world". How are you supposed to change them when you can't even adjust yourself to align with what you preach?

These are cynical, and closed positions you're taking. You're not challenging my assumption. You're starting with the assumption that I can't easily make a huge difference, I'm challenging your assumption. Resigning to "You're looking for quick solutions to a problem of which you are denying the depths of" is a closed position. You may be right that there are not quick solutions, but if there are you're not going to be able to find them with a cynical outlook. I'm not denying the depth of the problem, I'm trying to shine a light to see how deep the problem is, that's why I keep asking the questions. When you've confronted the irrationality in yourself - I don't accept that it is irrational to keep asking questions and not accept your position, even if you think it is unlikely that I'll find a better answer than what you're giving me. It's not a truth that it's not possible to argue some sense into someone, it's an opinion.

"People" are the "world". How are you supposed to change them when you can't even adjust yourself to align with what you preach? Again you're assuming it's irrational to think I can make a huge difference. All the great philosophers have made a huge difference.

To put it another way. Your position that I  can't easily make someone rational is a subjective opinion not fact. Even if you gathered the best psychiatrists in the world and they agreed with you, the next great psychiatrist might come along and find the solution. My position that it may be possible to easily make people rational is also subjecting, I don't know how to make people rational so I can't prove my position until I figure out how to do it. So what's the point arguing over two subjective positions? It's futile, it's a waste of both of our time. You'd contribute far more if you could tell me why people are irrational, and if you could help me see the full depth of the problem. You don't know the full depth of the problem either.

 

[_LiveFree_]

 

Quote

Troll was the wrong word to describe you. Cynic is a better word. Cynicism is a philosophy that ends philosophy.

I find your line of argument draining, but not for the Freudian reasons you think. Your line of argument takes energy out of the discussion and gets people sidetracked.

#NotAnArgument

 

Quote

Philosophy is a light. As you understand the world better you can see what's happening around you. When I ask a question about the world I'm shining a light out to try to see the shapes that make reality. If I'm not satisfied with the answers then I'll keep asking questions until I find an answer that helps.

Philosophy is a light? Shining a light of for shapes that make reality? You'll only accept an answer if it helps? This is not philosophy. This is a circle jerk. Philosophy asks questions to look for answers that are correct. Screw what helps or feels nice or whatever the hell. Philosophy is for discovering what is correct. People don't like listening to nutrition because it says eat stuff that doesn't taste as good as this other stuff that will harm you. People don't like real action based philosophy because it says these actions will lead to lasting joy even though they might not feel good right now. Philosophy doesn't taste good when you first starting eating it.

 

Quote

You don't try to answer my questions. I shine a light out and you shine a light in my face and say the problems are with me. How am I supposed to see out when you're directing your torch at me? If I ask how can I argue with irrationality, you say I can't. If I ask why not, you ask why do I want to? If I ask how I can change people, you say hang around different people. If I ask how I can change the world, you tell me to adjust myself to the world. Nothing can ever be achieved by this line of argument. I'm having more success in finding answers in the

YES YES YES!! Philosophy is about turning the light onto yourself!! Everything can be achieved by turning the light on yourself. What, you think Stef just studied really hard and can now put 2 and 2 together? That dude dropped 2 solid years and over twenty thousand dollars on therapy. That's like turning the f-ing sun right in your face. Then after the therapy he brought honesty to his relationships, friends and family. You think this sh=t is easy?! This philosophy show came after all the self-work and for good reason. Philosophy is the most powerful weapon this world has ever seen and you're treating it like some plastic gun to be waved around as party favor. And I've read that thread. You haven't found dick, believe me. The only thing you've exposed is your willingness to mess with people to satisfy your own personal ends.

 

Quote

You're looking for quick solutions to a problem of which you are denying the depths of. In other words, by being so forthright, by being precise and terse, by challenging your assumptions (which btw, how do you come to a philosophy forum with questions and then deny out of hand the answers when you don't get what you want?), I'm trying to shake you loose out of the tree.

When you've confronted the irrationality in yourself, then you will have the courage to confront irrationality in those closest to you. Once through that, taking on the world's irrationality becomes an easy joy. You see me as trying to throw obstacles to trip you up. Stop. Observe. Think. Those obstacles are your real path. I'm showing you EXACTLY what you are looking for. But it means letting go of the illusions you've been holding onto, specifically about yourself and in your personal relationships. "People" are the "world". How are you supposed to change them when you can't even adjust yourself to align with what you preach?

These are cynical, and closed positions you're taking. You're not challenging my assumption. You're starting with the assumption that I can't easily make a huge difference, I'm challenging your assumption. Resigning to "You're looking for quick solutions to a problem of which you are denying the depths of" is a closed position. You may be right that there are not quick solutions, but if there are you're not going to be able to find them with a cynical outlook. I'm not denying the depth of the problem, I'm trying to shine a light to see how deep the problem is, that's why I keep asking the questions.

"These are cynical, and closed...", #NotAnArgument

LOL You think I'm starting with an assumption? And that assumption is you can't easily make a difference? That's retarded. Like feed you with a straw retarded.  No, I'm challenging your assumption that you know what the hell you're doing. I'm challenging your assumption that you know what putting philosophy in action really means. I'm challenging your assumption (read delusion) that you aren't completely scared out of your wits. You ARE denying the problem. I've shined the light on the problem and pointed it out for you. You continue to delude yourself into thinking it is something outside yourself. The very fact, FACT, that you are as resistent to this as you are is a crystal clear indicator that I am 100% right about it. What? You think you're the first one to go through this?

You go see a doctor and tell him you're having trouble lifting your briefcase. He examines your arm and then says, "Your arm is broken." You reply, "I didn't come here for you to look at me! Tell me how to lift the briefcase!"

Just ridiculous.

Also, I don't know if I've mentioned this but calling something "cynical" is #NotAnArgument (even if you're using that term to describe a particular brand of philsosphy)

 

Quote

When you've confronted the irrationality in yourself - I don't accept that it is irrational to keep asking questions and not accept your position, even if you think it is unlikely that I'll find a better answer than what you're giving me. It's not a truth that it's not possible to argue some sense into someone, it's an opinion.

I never once said you couldn't argue sense into someone if they are completely irrational. I just said you can't do it directly. And it's not an opinion. It's a fact I've seen on display many times over in my own life as I bring honesty to my relationships, and by listening to this call in show. You're a newbie, so I know you don't get that, but you will in time. In fact, I think we're seeing a bit of that right here. I'm being completely forthright with you and you reject what I'm saying out of hand. Kind of like the people who's minds you want to change. Hmmm, I wonder if it's their minds or your own you really want to change....

 

Quote

"People" are the "world". How are you supposed to change them when you can't even adjust yourself to align with what you preach? Again you're assuming it's irrational to think I can make a huge difference. All the great philosophers have made a huge difference.

The way you're going, it is completely rational to think you'll do jack squat. You're a complete lightweight who's going to get completely f*cked up if you're not careful with this stuff. You think I'm being antagonistic to you because I'm jaded or something. When reallly I'm your best friend on these forums right now. But then again, from what you've said about your family and the people you've hung around, I wouldn't expect you to recognize it when someone is actually acting with your best interest at heart and treating you with honesty.

 

Quote

As it happens I'm finding far more helpful answers in the thread "Practicality of Trolling", and we're exploring the depths of the problem. The thread is flowing smoothly without cynical positions.

My bowel movement flowed smoothy this morning, that doesn't mean it was anything special.

 

 

[plato85]

Say you're right, and I've got some serious issues. How does any of this actually answer the question of how to make someone rational?

Your position that I  can't easily make someone rational is a subjective opinion not fact. Even if you gathered the best psychiatrists in the world and they agreed with you, the next great psychiatrist might come along and find the solution. My position that it may be possible to easily make people rational is also subjecting, I don't know how to make people rational so I can't prove my position until I figure out how to do it. So what's the point arguing over two subjective positions? It's futile, it's a waste of both of our time. You'd contribute far more if you could tell me why people are irrational, and if you could help me see the full depth of the problem. You don't know the full depth of the problem either.

[plato85]

Your argument is that I can't convince people to be rational because I'm irrational. And your argument that I'm irrational is that I've got PC in my family, and I've tried and failed to convince them to use reason?

[os.motic]

You don't. The process of re-definition allows for words to be more useful and new words to emerge to more accurately describe a thing. Words are just tools that evolve over time. There is no way to combat efficiency. 

[_LiveFree_]

 

 

Quote

Say you're right, and I've got some serious issues. How does any of this actually answer the question of how to make someone rational?

"Doc! Doc! How does telling me I have a broken arm answer the question of how to lift my briefcase?!"

 

Quote

Your position that I  can't easily make someone rational is a subjective opinion not fact.

Actually, you've proven to me over the last few days that YOU can't easily make someone rational. You think I'm being irrational, yet, you haven't changed my mind. 

 

Quote

Even if you gathered the best psychiatrists in the world and they agreed with you,...

..don't need 'em...

 

Quote

the next great psychiatrist might come along and find the solution.

Great psychologist have come along and have told us exactly what I've been telling you. Are you sure you're listening to the experts? 

 

Quote

My position that it may be possible to easily make people rational is also subjecting, I don't know how to make people rational so I can't prove my position until I figure out how to do it.

It is not "subjective". It's a hypothesis, which has easily been proven false.  I know you're smart so please reread what those two terms mean and how you've gotten them mixed up.

 

Quote

So what's the point arguing over two subjective positions?

I'm not.

 

Quote

It's futile, it's a waste of both of our time.

I've obviously deemed this conversation and you to not be a waste of my time. Why do you think that is the case? (actually curious what you think)

 

Quote

You'd contribute far more if you could tell me why people are irrational, and if you could help me see the full depth of the problem. You don't know the full depth of the problem either.

So I'd be more useful to you if I told you why "people" are irrational? You started out by asking how to change an irrational mind, so you'd think you'd already know why that mind is irrational. If a car won't start I have to find out why first before I get it to go faster. 

I'd contribute far more if I could see the full depth of the problem, but I don't know the full depth of the problem and neither do you??? WAT?

 

I know full well why people are irrational. They are raised by irrational people who lie to them and/or use violence or psychological violence against them in order to coerce behavior they want out of the child.

An example: A father, mother, and three children are all sitting around a dinner table. The father holds up his hand palm up and says, "Let us thank this apple for our wonderful existence."
Curious Child replies, "What apple?"
Father's child says, "The Red Apple in father's hands!"
Mother's Child adds, "Don't you see it?"
Mother says, "Oh honey, I know you can see the Red Apple."
Curious Child replies, "No I don't. His hand is empty."
Father replies, "That'll be enough of that. Children, thank the Red Apple."

All but the Curious Child fold their hands in prayer. 

 

I've used a religious example, however, you can replace Red Apple with anything: god, the state, multiculturalism, social status, or familial love. Imagine what happens to the Curious Child's perception of reality. They grow up time after time having to acknowledge something that isn't true and will be attacked or ostracized for denying its existence. And worse, as they get older and run into seemingly impenetrable road blocks caused by the delusion, they will get input from the people who share this delusion who blame the road block on something completely different. They paint the road block and go on pretending it isn't there anymore.

 

6 hours ago, plato85 said:

Your argument is that I can't convince people to be rational because I'm irrational. And your argument that I'm irrational is that I've got PC in my family, and I've tried and failed to convince them to use reason?

Nope. Not once have I claimed that. Nice try though. (not really, I'm being snarky. Which is well deserved as I have stated multiple times what my argument is. You have yet to actually address it, btw. All you do is skirt around it.) 

[mgggb]

On 4/26/2017 at 11:17 PM, plato85 said:

How to we combat newspeak/ deconstructionism?

Personally I like messing around with ersatz intellectuals that use new speak terms because they're so predictable and watching their cognitive dissonance get triggered is hilarious. I try to do it only if there's an audience because their foolishness is a great object lesson for anyone not too far gone. 

Exposing people for the imbeciles they are is the only way to combat newspeak.