Think for yourself, question authority.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:15 am

Uccisore wrote:When you can't get somebody to admit that they'd trust the word of a physicist on matters of physics over that of a little kid, then you've arrived at one of the limitations of arguing over the internet. A person never has to admit when they're wrong if they never have to look you in the eye when they're spouting preposterous nonsense. Maniacal Mongoose demonstrates another limitation- if you stick to your guns long enough, sooner or later *somebody* out there will wipe the drool off their chin long enough to mutter some agreement. Even Ecmandu threads will get some new guy stumbling in to say "That's a good point, Ecmandu!" if they go on long enough.

:wink:

This reminds me of the following:

What has always been a good method too is what the famous pied piper of Hameln stands for. So a ratcatcher just needs rats (they are currently almost everywhere and becoming more and more) and kids (they are currently becoming more and more in the so-called "Third World"). In this ILP example the "rats" stand for certain "arguments" and the "kids" for the "innocents" or "simpletons". And what does the ratcatcher do? Or: What did the pied piper of Hameln do?

But there is certainly no ILP ratcatcher. No, no .... Or? What do you think?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:16 am

"Think for yourself, question authority." Alright - but: said by whom?

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
When you can't get somebody to admit that they'd trust the word of a physicist on matters of physics over that of a little kid, then you've arrived at one of the limitations of arguing over the internet. A person never has to admit when they're wrong if they never have to look you in the eye when they're spouting preposterous nonsense. Maniacal Mongoose demonstrates another limitation- if you stick to your guns long enough, sooner or later *somebody* out there will wipe the drool off their chin long enough to mutter some agreement. Even Ecmandu threads will get some new guy stumbling in to say "That's a good point, Ecmandu!" if they go on long enough.


I'm not saying to trust, that's exactly what the traps people into thinking that someone is right because they are the authority. That is not correct reasoning and not how to operate. Trust no one, think for yourself, do not fall to the snake charmers, the authorities, etc, because they are "shiny".

Said by the one who does not think for himself and not question authority.

Most of what you are saying is politically correct, so it is mostly what the political authority wants you to think and to say, just to not question the current authority.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:17 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:WW,

=D> I commend you for your effort of going against the grain of 'how knowledge is supposed to be acquired as well as leaving the door ajar on who's authority it is based' in your hypothetical. <--- Even if that wasn't your aim, it was big of you to trudge uphill none-the-less. Thanks WW! You made my day!

It's 50%/50% either way, right or wrong. Say the 5 year old is psychic where as the physicist has only a house of cards built in mid-air (theories). That's what could actually be the case based off WW's hypothetical.

I tend to be a risk taker so I would go with the kid, even though it "seems" unbelievable that he could (let alone would) have the true, correct answer. Both the kid and the physicist would have to be tested via the appropriate line of questioning which does not exist in science today. Science is waiting for philosophy to expand it's horizons.

Wrapping one's logical head around such a foreign possibility shuts down rationality I fear. Does not compute Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!

If philosophy refuses (kicking and screaming all the way) to acknowledge the possibilities, how is science ever going to progress?



Well thank you Mongoose - it was left open because it should be left open. It's for the sake of intellectual "honesty" - not to be deceptive or to trick. If knowledge is, then how knowledge got there is irrelevant to it being knowledge, for the sake of it being knowledge. So you're right, say the 5 year old is a psychic. Perhaps the child is a genius. Perhaps the physicist made a simple mistake, or miscommunicated something. Perhaps the physicist cheated through college. Perhaps the physicist is a sociopathic liar. Perhaps the child got lucky.

The point of this whole thread is that reason and logic, coupled with your values essentially are the authority, not people.

Are you one of the the new ratcatchers? Are you the modern pied piper of Hameln?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:25 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Sure there are levels of uncertainty. I am not required to believe I know what you mean when discussing things, nor do I, nor should I.


The question is "believe" not "believe you know". At every turn you are adding certainty to belief so you can keep on pretending you don't have beliefs. You have been told innumerable times that certainty is not a component of belief. This is another of those things that leads to people calling you intellectually dishonest.


Sure - so it's actually I don't believe that I "have grasped the truth of your meaning through the words or expression others use " due to the complexities of language as I already explained elsewhere. I know that I don't know.

So you admit that you contradict yourself.

Thanks.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I am always agnostic about it. It is ingrained in my thought process. I am not shocked by believing I understood what you meant when you correct me on your meaning, or anyone else, because I don't have that belief that I think my understanding of your meaning is true, or necessarily true. There is doubt, not belief.

You mean: There is angriness, not fun.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:28 am

Moreno wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Uccisore wrote:The question is "believe" not "believe you know". At every turn you are adding certainty to belief so you can keep on pretending you don't have beliefs. You have been told innumerable times that certainty is not a component of belief. This is another of those things that leads to people calling you intellectually dishonest.


Sure - so it's actually I don't believe that I "have grasped the truth of your meaning through the words or expression others use " due to the complexities of language as I already explained elsewhere. I know that I don't know. I am always agnostic about it. It is ingrained in my thought process. I am not shocked by believing I understood what you meant when you correct me on your meaning, or anyone else, because I don't have that belief that I think my understanding of your meaning is true, or necessarily true. There is doubt, not belief.
So you walk around all day doubting all the communication you hear and read. You never simply believe Jimmy wanted you to check the figures on that file, you spend time doubting what you heard was what you heard and further what Jimmy meant.

You never believe that you have evaluated something well and trust your evaluation, but doubt your evaluations of your interpretations of what people say.

You doubt your own epistemology.

Yes. Of course. Always having an epistemology and always being agnostic about it. Such an "epistemology" is no epistemology.

Moreno wrote:You doubt your own evaluation of your doubting. You considered, after reading Uccisore's last post, if you really did always doubt, then decided that you did doubt, rather than believe, and then evaluated this evaluation, since you doubted that one also. After infinite time (or is it like the hare, simply infinite fractions of time that add up to one) you wrote your response to Uccisore and caught up with the tortoise.

If your wife asks for the salt, you actually ratiocinate before reaching for it, since she might have said 'too much salt' or 'is that all?'

I cannot imagine what reading a newpaper would be like for you, always having to build from the bottom up again, since past evaluations of what Congress is and does, for example, that you made back then, may be incorrect. You cannot simply believe in your memory and past conclusions you made, you have to doubt these, each time a topic comes up, because those past evaluations you made may not have been as correct as they seemed, back then, or your memory has distorted them.

How do you find time for anything other then the mind bogglingly complex, endless process of reading even the first article?

Or is it that if once in your life you analyzed something, you know you did it write, and you can believe in your past analysis?

And just to be clear. There is what you know, which is correct, period, and everything else you doubt. Two immaculate categories, separare Boolean spheres, no overlap and no other categories.
I can see, given that, why it would be so hard to reevaluate what you have stated in the face of criticism.

Maybe he is Sisyphus. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:05 am

Arminius wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:WW,

=D> I commend you for your effort of going against the grain of 'how knowledge is supposed to be acquired as well as leaving the door ajar on who's authority it is based' in your hypothetical. <--- Even if that wasn't your aim, it was big of you to trudge uphill none-the-less. Thanks WW! You made my day!

It's 50%/50% either way, right or wrong. Say the 5 year old is psychic where as the physicist has only a house of cards built in mid-air (theories). That's what could actually be the case based off WW's hypothetical.

I tend to be a risk taker so I would go with the kid, even though it "seems" unbelievable that he could (let alone would) have the true, correct answer. Both the kid and the physicist would have to be tested via the appropriate line of questioning which does not exist in science today. Science is waiting for philosophy to expand it's horizons.

Wrapping one's logical head around such a foreign possibility shuts down rationality I fear. Does not compute Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!

If philosophy refuses (kicking and screaming all the way) to acknowledge the possibilities, how is science ever going to progress?



Well thank you Mongoose - it was left open because it should be left open. It's for the sake of intellectual "honesty" - not to be deceptive or to trick. If knowledge is, then how knowledge got there is irrelevant to it being knowledge, for the sake of it being knowledge. So you're right, say the 5 year old is a psychic. Perhaps the child is a genius. Perhaps the physicist made a simple mistake, or miscommunicated something. Perhaps the physicist cheated through college. Perhaps the physicist is a sociopathic liar. Perhaps the child got lucky.

The point of this whole thread is that reason and logic, coupled with your values essentially are the authority, not people.

Are you one of the the new ratcatchers? Are you the modern pied piper of Hameln?


I suppose if you are the rat, then yes.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:17 am

Arminius wrote:"Think for yourself, question authority." Alright - but: said by whom?


It's a game. You sing the virtues of 'thinking for yourself' so that you've go a handy way to badger a group you don't like that you can paint as stereotypically doing so. There isn't any philosophy to be found on the threads that ANGRY created, not really. It's just a series of tactical word placements to gain social advantage on an opposed group. I mean seriously - can you honestly say any thread he's created (and I mean those few that we've debated on for so long, plus the new one) have contained any non-biographical information? They're just complex ways of saying "I hate this" or "I'm great because this".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:20 am

Moreno wrote:So you walk around all day doubting all the communication you hear and read. You never simply believe Jimmy wanted you to check the figures on that file, you spend time doubting what you heard was what you heard and further what Jimmy meant.


If only you say the same thing ONE MORE TIME, in a slightly different configuration, his eyes will be opened, or he'll be forced to admit the game he's playing, and you'll get that tantalizing return on your investment in this thread that always seems just out of reach.

It's tempting, isn't it?

We have to disavow ourselves of the notion that people disagree with us because they don't understand, or that they want to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:15 pm

Such people like certain ILP members can be successful, and the main reason why they can be successful is (a) that they merely have to repeat their texts again and again, (b) that they get attention (!).

Probably you remember the follwing conversation:
Arminius wrote:
Uccisore wrote:Well, there it is in his new update- doing exactly as I predicted for the reasons I predicted.

It sucks that the only rebuttal is to just say again all the things he ignored when they were said before. I mean holy shit:

"3. Religion, faith, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Jainism, Taosim, are beliefs, not knowledge."

How are you supposed to deal with something like that in any sort of rigorous way?

Good question. .... Hmmm .... Should one just ignore him? .... Probably .... However: It sucks very much.

During my study at the university I have met many types of students who were back then exactly like the said certain ILP members are now. It is their ideological conceitedness that makes them so cocksure and ignorant, so that they do not only appear like stupid people but really are stupid people. You do not really have to care whether their incapacity is based on genetic defects or on ideological defects, because the effect is the same old stupidity as ever.

So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
1) Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again and again.
2) Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:55 pm

Arminius wrote:
So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
1) Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again and again.
2) Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).


There's an option 3, which I think is actually the most common option:
3.) Find a reason to interact with them that doesn't turn on convincing them of anything, or their admitting that somebody else made a good point. I think this is where a lot of trolling on the internet comes from- it is decided that it is pointless to treat a person, or a class of people, or perhaps all people on the internet as rational agents, and so the troll speaks to them for their own amusement instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:32 am

Uccisore wrote:
Arminius wrote:
So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
1) Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again and again.
2) Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).


There's an option 3, which I think is actually the most common option:
3.) Find a reason to interact with them that doesn't turn on convincing them of anything, or their admitting that somebody else made a good point. I think this is where a lot of trolling on the internet comes from- it is decided that it is pointless to treat a person, or a class of people, or perhaps all people on the internet as rational agents, and so the troll speaks to them for their own amusement instead.

The offer of my two legal options is based on the supposition that the common option - thus: your legal "option 3" - could perhaps be the legal "option 0", because it is what we have been doing here for so long, although perhaps just not consequently and thus not effectively enough. .... But, okay, let's see.

ImageImageImage
No.jpg
No.jpg (118.98 KiB) Viewed 1639 times
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:16 pm

phyllo wrote:
But - if the expert is more knowledgeable in a discipline, that can be understood very easily
How can it be understood easily? How does a person who is not knowledgeable in a disciple know when someone is knowledgeable in a discipline?


phyllo,

Well, for one thing at least, take ilp for instance. There are people here, "minds" who are self-restrained and disciplined when it comes to knowing how to respond in threads, no matter what is thrown at them. They have learned how to regulate their own behavior as opposed to the behavior of another, by remaining on focus and rejecting the insults by staying on subject. Their minds are open to the other even if they do not agree with the other. They will draw them out, question them but even if their perspective is different there will be no insults coming from.

That is to me being knowledgeable and well practiced in the discipline of discussing philosophy and it's quite observable. I admire that in these people. Perhaps it is in part because they are not phased by the insults and the underhanded ways people have to try to win an argument or if they are, they become like ducks shaking off the water. Many of those kinds of ducks which were here have flown away to other philsophy forums unfortunately. It is only about the philosophy to them.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:07 pm

Yeah, a place like ILP leads one to believe that philosophy requires no specialized knowledge or ability. Maybe it's true for philosophy in general. I'm not sure at this point. There seem to be just as many examples of philosophy being useful as examples of philosophy being useless.

You might end up seeing clearly or you might end up in a fog.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:16 pm

Do not think for yourself, do not question authority. Assume that these "specialized" philosophers, with knowledge and skill that you do not possess, whomever they might be, just simply have it right. Obey, listen, nod your head, and hush. Conform to their words. Whichever regime, people, philosophers that you think holds the keys to this specialized knowledge and skill surely has done it all, the right way, the only way. Think like others, don't question authority.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Uccisore » Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:11 pm

phyllo wrote:Yeah, a place like ILP leads one to believe that philosophy requires no specialized knowledge or ability.


That tends to happen in fields in which the consequences for being wrong are not immediately apparent. If you try to be a soldier or a firefighter without any specialized knowledge or ability, you just die or get somebody killed and that's that. If you're running any kind of business without specialized knowledge or ability, then you don't make any money- there are explicit, mathematical ways in which your failure can be measured and shown to you.

In philosophy, if you enter into it with no specialized knowledge or ability, the consequences are social; all that can really happen to you is other philosophers roll their eyes, laugh, or refuse to engage you. Nobody obligates you to actually *live* by the crazy ideas you espouse, so other people's reactions to you when you espouse them is really the only evaluation to be had.

One would expect, then, that bad philosophers would have as a cornerstone of their approach a justification for why the opinions of others don't matter. It is a way of dispersing the only consequences for being bad at what they do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:23 pm

In philosophy, if you enter into it with no specialized knowledge or ability, the consequences are social; all that can really happen to you is other philosophers roll their eyes, laugh, or refuse to engage you. Nobody obligates you to actually *live* by the crazy ideas you espouse, so other people's reactions to you when you espouse them is really the only evaluation to be had
There seem to be two possibilities :

- you live the philosophy ... in which case there are real consequences.

- you talk about the philosophy ... in which case the only consequences are some talk in response, which produces even more talk in response.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:19 am

In academic philosophy, lectures, courses - thinking and judging philosophy for yourself is promoted. Academia is actually more concerned with nurturing independent new thought on a level not seen in any other schooling. I have yet to see a philosophy teacher downright lecture class on the level that presented complex philosophies as right and wrong, from Plato to Russell. There is no science on the millions of pages of philosophies, books, academic or not, that is something to be taken as fact. That just doesn't happen in philosophy - but it can be wrong, it can be logically invalid. Even if it is logically invalid as a whole, there might be aspects of it that can be put to use.

Professors do present their opinion on things of course, but they don't present their opinion as fact, as science does. They ask for their students to explain things, to know what certain philosophers meant by what they stated, to argue for or against them, most of the time it doesn't matter if its for or against. Philosophy is greatly about cogent arguments, thesis and logical possibilities. Yes it studies things that are essentially not scientifically rigorous - in so much that it deals a lot with the mind, how we perceive things, how we think about things. People think very differently from one person to the next. Also, a lot of philosophy is value based, in so much if you don't find value in a certain philosophy, you don't have to agree with it.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:22 am

phyllo wrote:
In philosophy, if you enter into it with no specialized knowledge or ability, the consequences are social; all that can really happen to you is other philosophers roll their eyes, laugh, or refuse to engage you. Nobody obligates you to actually *live* by the crazy ideas you espouse, so other people's reactions to you when you espouse them is really the only evaluation to be had
There seem to be two possibilities :

- you live the philosophy ... in which case there are real consequences.

- you talk about the philosophy ... in which case the only consequences are some talk in response, which produces even more talk in response.


And even then, living your philosophy can only test a certain narrow range of ideas, and which ideas pass the test is going to be in some part determined by what kind of society you live in. I.E., if your Government really wants a certain bad philosophy to be the state ideology, they can protect people from the natural consequences of that bad philosophy, and create artificial consequences to others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:24 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:In academic philosophy, lectures, courses - thinking and judging philosophy for yourself is promoted.


No, no. Based on past exchanges, I am not prepared to accept that you have any idea what goes on in a philosophy classroom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:06 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:In academic philosophy, lectures, courses - thinking and judging philosophy for yourself is promoted.


No, no. Based on past exchanges, I am not prepared to accept that you have any idea what goes on in a philosophy classroom.


Well, sure you have a very rigid mind I would say and a lot of that is based on assumptions. It seems you like to go with whatever you feel is probable then it becomes your gold standard. But what you feel or think is probable seems to be very much so based on rigidity and assumptions as well. Seems some black and white thinking might be systemic. You seemed to have gotten the wrong impression of philosophic academia somehow. I couldn't point the finger at academia here, but it seems to be how you think, why you think the way you think which is more inherent in you, not academia. If you took or graduated from college, it might depend on your major and field of study. Liberal arts? I wouldn't think so. Something more rigid perhaps. Maybe nothing. Maybe, video games are more important to you.


"In psychology, rigidity refers to an obstinate inability to yield or a refusal to appreciate another person's viewpoint or emotions characterized by a lack of empathy. It can also refer to the tendency to perseverate, which is the inability to change habits and the inability to modify concepts and attitudes once developed. A specific example of rigidity is functional fixedness, which is a difficulty conceiving new uses for familiar objects. Systematic research on rigidity can be found tracing back to Gestalt psychologists, going as far back as the late 19th to early 20th century. With more than 100 years of research on the matter there is some established and clear data. Nonetheless, there is still much controversy surrounding several of the fundamental aspects of rigidity. In the early stages of approaching the idea of rigidity, it is treated as "a unidimensional continuum ranging from rigid at one end to flexible at the other". This idea dates back to the 1800s and was later articulated by Charles Spearman who described it as mental inertia. Prior to 1960 many definitions for the term rigidity were afloat. One example includes Kurt Goldstein's, which he stated, "adherence to a present performance in an inadequate way", another being Milton Rokeach saying the definition was, "[the] inability to change one's set when the objective conditions demand it".

Mental set
Mental sets represent a form of rigidity in which an individual behaves or believes in a certain way due to prior experience. In the field of psychology, mental sets are typically examined in the process of problem solving, with an emphasis on the process of breaking away from particular mental sets into formulation of insight. Breaking mental sets in order to successfully resolve problems fall under three typical stages: a) tendency to solve a problem in a fixed way, b) unsuccessfully solving a problem using methods suggested by prior experience, and c) realizing that the solution requires different methods. Components of high executive functioning, such as the interplay between working memory and inhibition, are essential to effective switching between mental sets for different situations.[6] Individual differences in mental sets vary, with one study producing a variety of cautious and risky strategies in individual responses to a reaction time test."
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Moreno » Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:48 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:In academic philosophy, lectures, courses - thinking and judging philosophy for yourself is promoted.


No, no. Based on past exchanges, I am not prepared to accept that you have any idea what goes on in a philosophy classroom.
No, you have misunderstood. When WWW makes an assertion, he is doubting. So if he says he took philosophy courses he is doubting that he took philosophy courses. Here he is asserting that thinking and judging philosophy for yourself is promoted there. This means he doubts that that is what happens there.

You have to see all his assertions as acts of doubting.

When I said that he was not using the term correctly to describe what he was doing here when he made assertions, he was incredulous. How could I know what is going on in his mind when he makes assertions. When I assured him that he might not be certain his assertions are true, he was still doing something significant other than doubting when he makes assertions here, dismisses objections and remakes those same assertions, he said this was not correct. He is doubting, period. He does not believe his assertions, he does not think they are true. He is doubting.

He doesn't think they are true. He isn't making a case.

He is sharing his doubts.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:23 am

Pandora wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:I always tell people if you're ever expecting the majority of stupid sheople to get off their lazy complacent asses you'll be greatly disappointed. This is why I don't care about a majority of people. They're worthless and useless cattle. Fuck'em.
Why do people always assume these things about other people, but exclude themselves?
The whole world is shit...except me. People are lazy, or greedy, etc., except me.

You think lazy and stupid people don't say these things?


Stop talking about yourself that way Pandora....
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:27 am

When you reduce authority in its entirety is has no real justification to exist.

It's all reduced to power which beyond ideals or elaborate covers enforces its very existence through power alone.
Last edited by Mictlantecuhtli on Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:35 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:A beautiful quote, as far as I'm concerned.

"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness. (A) chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself."


The real delusion of those with power in authority is the belief that they'll someday tame or domesticate this universal existential chaos we find ourselves in. It's a massive delusion that has covered all of the history of civilization.

The problem with most human beings that hold allegiances with authority is that they don't understand just how futile this experiment we call civilization really is and overtime our world has become very fragile which is why natural chaos will prevail in the end no matter what segments of humanity desire otherwise.

Human social order or otherwise will never be imposed on this world and the whole universe. There might be successes temporarily but in the end the universe shows us the vanity of our own ideals or pursuits which is why they never last very long.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Think for yourself, question authority.

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:58 pm

Moreno wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:In academic philosophy, lectures, courses - thinking and judging philosophy for yourself is promoted.


No, no. Based on past exchanges, I am not prepared to accept that you have any idea what goes on in a philosophy classroom.
No, you have misunderstood. When WWW makes an assertion, he is doubting. So if he says he took philosophy courses he is doubting that he took philosophy courses. Here he is asserting that thinking and judging philosophy for yourself is promoted there. This means he doubts that that is what happens there.

You have to see all his assertions as acts of doubting.

When I said that he was not using the term correctly to describe what he was doing here when he made assertions, he was incredulous. How could I know what is going on in his mind when he makes assertions. When I assured him that he might not be certain his assertions are true, he was still doing something significant other than doubting when he makes assertions here, dismisses objections and remakes those same assertions, he said this was not correct. He is doubting, period. He does not believe his assertions, he does not think they are true. He is doubting.

He doesn't think they are true. He isn't making a case.

He is sharing his doubts.



That's the wrong terminology - sharing possibilities. Sharing knowledge.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users