Freewill exists

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

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon May 20, 2019 8:54 pm

Silhouette wrote:Free Will needs something like Modal Realism to be plausible in order to justify "you could have chosen otherwise".

This is just a bunch of bullshit...

Let's say you have 1,000 people and 10 doors. Everybody picks a door to go through. So everybody makes their choices and starts going through the doors. But one door, door #4 is locked, and people were not made aware of that before making their choices. Those that choose door #4 are held back. Everybody else walks through.

They could have chosen otherwise, but they didn't.

It's as simple as that. Before everybody chose their door, they all did have free-will to choose any of those doors.


You're implying that "everybody decided before they decided". No, they didn't. You're wrong again, Silhouette, face the music.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 20, 2019 9:44 pm

Silhouette,

This is going to be funny!

What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire?

What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons, instead of an external tool, it's built into biology through greater technology?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Silhouette » Mon May 20, 2019 11:08 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

This is going to be funny!

What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire?

What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons, instead of an external tool, it's built into biology through greater technology?

Yeah man, this could be our future... seems weird, but also appears likely.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 20, 2019 11:13 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

This is going to be funny!

What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire?

What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons, instead of an external tool, it's built into biology through greater technology?

Yeah man, this could be our future... seems weird, but also appears likely.


The obvious question here being...

What does that say about determinism?

It's a zero point argument, the determiner and the determined are the same exact thing: compatibalism!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Freewill exists

Postby promethean75 » Mon May 20, 2019 11:37 pm

you've got more patience for the po-jama people than i ever had, sil, and i don't know how you do it.

some people's hot
some people's cold
some people's not very swift to behold
some people do it
some see right through it
some wear po-jamas
if only they knew it
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Silhouette » Tue May 21, 2019 12:53 am

Ecmandu wrote:What does that say about determinism?

It's a zero point argument, the determiner and the determined are the same exact thing: compatibalism!

It's Determinism-ception.

Being determined to want to determine what you want etc.

More like an infinite points argument for Determinism with zero points argument for any degree of Free Will.

promethean75 wrote:you've got more patience for the po-jama people than i ever had, sil, and i don't know how you do it.

If I quit, they'll just declare victory. I'm stuck, halp mee.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Freewill exists

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 21, 2019 1:03 am

Silhouette wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:What does that say about determinism?

It's a zero point argument, the determiner and the determined are the same exact thing: compatibalism!

It's Determinism-ception.

Being determined to want to determine what you want etc.

More like an infinite points argument for Determinism with zero points argument for any degree of Free Will.

promethean75 wrote:you've got more patience for the po-jama people than i ever had, sil, and i don't know how you do it.

If I quit, they'll just declare victory. I'm stuck, halp mee.

Haha dont worry lad, they declared victory a while ago.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 21, 2019 1:35 am

Silhouette wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:What does that say about determinism?

It's a zero point argument, the determiner and the determined are the same exact thing: compatibalism!

It's Determinism-ception.

Being determined to want to determine what you want etc.

More like an infinite points argument for Determinism with zero points argument for any degree of Free Will.

promethean75 wrote:you've got more patience for the po-jama people than i ever had, sil, and i don't know how you do it.

If I quit, they'll just declare victory. I'm stuck, halp mee.


You're still in a binary state of mind.

Compatabilism is non binary ...

You're still an ape trying to evolve from the jungle, which is why this debate causes so many problems for you.

You're the dualist, not me.

Project much?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Freewill exists

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 21, 2019 1:40 am

Pardon my taunt but I think that there isn't even disagreement. It is like a chase of people tied to the same pole, and at each moment they are on opposite sides of the pole, constantly well ahead of each other and gleeful about it but also constantly covering the same ground.

What caused them to be running that way?
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 21, 2019 1:46 am

Ok promethean stop your summary posting and get at me with what youve really read in the book. I have it handy here as always.
This is a Spinozean logic Im proposing now.

The real question is: is free will something to talk about. Or is it moot.

If the answer is: no, discussing it is bullshit because it isn't referring to any aspect of reality, then well, we are being idiots here for sure.
If the answer is: yes, discussing it will progress our understanding of a very real thing which we now understand only as the dichotomy "determinism" - "free will", then it must be the case that the notion of free will has a reality to it. Determinism as well, but no one is contesting that part.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Silhouette » Tue May 21, 2019 2:14 am

barbarianhorde wrote:Haha dont worry lad, they declared victory a while ago.

These days even the US president just declares whatever he wants, regardless: victory, success, truth... - these others can do the same, but does it make them right to do so?

I do feel like I'm constantly covering the same ground, you're right. But I don't feel like I'm running - more like I already wondered away from other people, found a better view and am trying to get them to come over to check it out. But they're faced the other way either telling me my view is worse than theirs without even looking, or following my directions somewhere else and telling me my view sucks. There's definitely a disagreement.

Ecmandu wrote:You're still an ape trying to evolve from the jungle, which is why this debate causes so many problems for you.

You're the dualist, not me.

Sure man. I mean, I am explicitly a substance monist (experience), and this debate has been no problem at all. But other than that, why not <eats a banana>.

barbarianhorde wrote:The real question is: is free will something to talk about. Or is it moot.

If the answer is: no, discussing it is bullshit because it isn't referring to any aspect of reality, then well, we are being idiots here for sure.
If the answer is: yes, discussing it will progress our understanding of a very real thing which we now understand only as the dichotomy "determinism" - "free will", then it must be the case that the notion of free will has a reality to it. Determinism as well, but no one is contesting that part.

If someone believes in something that can't exist, it's worth talking about it with them because it has no reality to it - I reject your "Spinozan logic" because you're commiting a False Dilemma fallacy.
Additionally, if others believing in something that can't exist causes the world to work in a less preferable way than if they didn't believe in it, then it's worth talking about it with them not just for their sake but yours as well.
You could come at me equating different forms of existence - like Santa "exists", therefore "Free Will" exists - but I'm talking about existing in the real world, not an imaginary one.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 21, 2019 2:23 am

Silhouette,

You called yourself an "experience monist"?

You are aware that people have mutually exclusive experiences don't you?

The only experience, though divergent in many ways, that everyone can relate to is that their consent is being violated.

Ethics then should all spring forth as solving this.

But, according to you, there's nothing to solve because experience lacking identity is a monism: nothing to solve, right ? No work to be done, right ?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Freewill exists

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 21, 2019 2:24 am

No Silhouette you are superficial. And Spinoza is the man.
Look at the spaghetti monster. Is it worth debating whether it exists? No.

Not even the fact that the guy was allowed to have it on his passport makes for a topic about whether it really exists. We coolant fill two posts of it. It would tire us out of pure boredom instantly.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 21, 2019 2:28 am

I don't like the way I said things in this post which is now edited to be this sentence.

(Except: its just the words that deceive us at first, make moot and real thought seem like its the same thing.)
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Silhouette » Tue May 21, 2019 9:20 am

barbarianhorde wrote:No Silhouette you are superficial. And Spinoza is the man.
Look at the spaghetti monster. Is it worth debating whether it exists? No.

If pointing out logical fallacy makes me superficial then fine, I'll be that. Spinoza is great, your use of his methods are not great: nice Motte and Bailey fallacy - another one for you.

Spaghetti monster ought not to be worth debating (that was the whole intention after all) but when people believe in it and think it is worth debating, it's worth correcting them - especially if the consequences spill over into everyday life.

Ecmandu wrote:You called yourself an "experience monist"?

You are aware that people have mutually exclusive experiences don't you?

Yes. I am. But pluralism in "token" is not the same as dualism in "type": all concepts you learn in your first year at college/university. Your argument is again invalid.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue May 21, 2019 10:11 am

Silhouette wrote:If I quit, they'll just declare victory. I'm stuck, halp mee.
LOL. This has to be online participation lesson 1 or perhaps 10, but somewhere early on.

You can't let others potential or actual declaring victory mean anything, or at least can't let it control your behavior, or then people with joy in repetition and people with unfounded confidence have control of you. (this last, just to tie it in to the issue of freewill, without making it mean either free will or determinism is the case).

But I do understand the feeling.

It has been a hightly effective tool both as a defense mechanism and as a kind of trollish move to combine repeating the same assertions with declarations of victory (a little mind reading is also a great flourish).

But if one let's it control one's behavior you literally become a character in someone else's fantasy.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue May 21, 2019 10:16 am

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

This is going to be funny!

What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire?

What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons, instead of an external tool, it's built into biology through greater technology?

A determinist would say that then....

the choice of how those neurons would be made based on the desires values temperment (both conscious and unconscious) of the person. and those were caused by the prior temperment experiences desires values of the person just before they got to choose and these....going back to the original meiosis or mitosis or....all the way back to the big bang. And then the qm guys say, other stuff might have happened, but it would be random....and then the determinists say, sure, you indeteminists have a good point, but that ain't free will and the indeterminists say, yeah, we agree with you on that one.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 21, 2019 1:59 pm

Silhouette wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:No Silhouette you are superficial. And Spinoza is the man.
Look at the spaghetti monster. Is it worth debating whether it exists? No.

If pointing out logical fallacy makes me superficial then fine, I'll be that. Spinoza is great, your use of his methods are not great: nice Motte and Bailey fallacy - another one for you.

Spaghetti monster ought not to be worth debating (that was the whole intention after all) but when people believe in it and think it is worth debating, it's worth correcting them - especially if the consequences spill over into everyday life.

Spinoza is NEVER dealing with hypotheticals. That may be why he is impossible for you and many people to even approach.

My logic is pretty nifty and definitely Spinozean. If you can't see that, I bet you didn't read him actually. In fact I think hardly anyone has really read his arguments completely.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 21, 2019 3:44 pm

Spinoza isn't like your standard philosopher where you can just take out a phrase and say "look he said this!"
What he really says is in how he draws one statement from a bunch of previous ones.

Thats in a sense the real positivism. Meaning, no dualism, no zero-sum nonsense, but a building up of a model of the inevitable.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 21, 2019 4:23 pm

Silhouette wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:No Silhouette you are superficial. And Spinoza is the man.
Look at the spaghetti monster. Is it worth debating whether it exists? No.

If pointing out logical fallacy makes me superficial then fine, I'll be that. Spinoza is great, your use of his methods are not great: nice Motte and Bailey fallacy - another one for you.

Spaghetti monster ought not to be worth debating (that was the whole intention after all) but when people believe in it and think it is worth debating, it's worth correcting them - especially if the consequences spill over into everyday life.

Ecmandu wrote:You called yourself an "experience monist"?

You are aware that people have mutually exclusive experiences don't you?

Yes. I am. But pluralism in "token" is not the same as dualism in "type": all concepts you learn in your first year at college/university. Your argument is again invalid.


this is not even close to a type-token argument, I was like WTF?

My argument is that mutually exclusive consents invalidate your argument of experiential monism, for example:

One person wants to destroy existence

Another person wants to exist forever.

One is experience driven (you)

The other is anti experience driven

They are anti experienceists.

That's not a monism.

It's one thing to say that black and white are both colors, it's a completely different thing when experience as the argument upon itself is mutually exclusive.

Your not using your philosophic jargon correctly ...

I'll get to Karpel tunnel soon. A bit busy today.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 21, 2019 5:16 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

This is going to be funny!

What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire?

What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons, instead of an external tool, it's built into biology through greater technology?

A determinist would say that then....

the choice of how those neurons would be made based on the desires values temperment (both conscious and unconscious) of the person. and those were caused by the prior temperment experiences desires values of the person just before they got to choose and these....going back to the original meiosis or mitosis or....all the way back to the big bang. And then the qm guys say, other stuff might have happened, but it would be random....and then the determinists say, sure, you indeteminists have a good point, but that ain't free will and the indeterminists say, yeah, we agree with you on that one.


I'm not arguing the absolutes, I'm arguing compatabilism.

If a photon can be used to determine other photons, how does that photon not have an element of choice or will? Sure, it still has to be a photon: that's determinism ... but for a photon to have the quality of changing itself and others, suggests an innate will in spite of the determinism of it needing a body to exersize that will in the first place
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Freewill exists

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue May 21, 2019 8:03 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire

What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons instead of an external tool its built into biology through greater technology

In the future nano technology will become standard in humans thus rendering most or all of surgery obsolete
As it would act as a filter detecting among other things cancer cells and destroying them before they spread

As a consequence humans would morph from complete or virtual biological organisms [ like now ] into humanoids [ part machine / part human ]
Going to a doctor or surgeon would then become a thing of the past as human physicians would be replaced by the far more efficient nano tech
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby Silhouette » Tue May 21, 2019 8:20 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Spinoza is NEVER dealing with hypotheticals. That may be why he is impossible for you and many people to even approach.

Oh he's impossible for me to understand or even approach? Thanks for letting me know about my own brain, I've only had it all my life - how long did you borrow it for again?
Perhaps your Spinozan superpowers extend to faultless and complete telepathy merely from reading a few posts by someone - very impressive.

I guess I can continue to expect from you more of what you called "taunting", and it looks like arguments from authority (appeal to accomplishment) too. The list of fallacies you're making is off to a great start, keep it up.

barbarianhorde wrote:My logic is pretty nifty and definitely Spinozean. If you can't see that, I bet you didn't read him actually. In fact I think hardly anyone has really read his arguments completely.

Your bet is correct - I've never read any Spinoza, so you can now immediately assume absolute superiority based solely on this qualification of yours. Comfy now?
Is this more confirmation for you that I'd never be unable to understand him? That would be a nice fallacy to add to your collection.
I'm assuming from what you say, that you've read every single one of his arguments completely, but it doesn't sound like you know many people in higher education if you don't think many people have done what you're implying you have.

From what I read about Spinoza, he sounded very similarly disposed to a lot things as I am, including being against Descartes' Dualism and Free Will, like I'm arguing in this very thread, and being a Determinist - even upon application to humans - also exactly what I'm arguing... Even my own original argument against the existence of God was compared to Spinoza when I explained it to a PhD friend of mine from university.

But if the guy argues as fallaciously as you - the self-professed master of his philosophy claiming to use logic on par with him - I'm kinda put off...

I guess it's just beyond simple beings like myself that Spinoza can use the False Dilemma and Argument from authority fallacies without issue - as you've been demonstrating so far.
I'm expecting great things from you.
What's a prized argument you've made, Spinozan or otherwise? I need to fall to my knees in admiration asap plz. I *want* to believe you're worth what you say you are, rather than what I've witnessed so far.

Ecmandu wrote:this is not even close to a type-token argument, I was like WTF?

Oh dear...
You say that people have mutually exclusive experiences, there are lots of people, therefore plural tokens of experience.
You imply that I am not an "experience monist" as I claim, when I am using Monist in opposition to Dualist - which is two types of substance, generally mind versus matter.
In order for your argument to make the slightest sense, you'd have to be doubting my Monism (in type) by counter argument that there are Pluralist (tokens of) experiences.
This is a perfect example of or arguing by mixing up types with tokens...

You even go on to continue the same conflation with the following:

Ecmandu wrote:My argument is that mutually exclusive consents invalidate your argument of experiential monism, for example:

One person wants to destroy existence

Another person wants to exist forever.

One is experience driven (you)

The other is anti experience driven

They are anti experienceists.

That's not a monism.

It's one thing to say that black and white are both colors, it's a completely different thing when experience as the argument upon itself is mutually exclusive.

Your premise: Two tokens of experience can be incompatible.
Your conclusion: That's not type-monism (as I'm using it when I say I am a monist).

You. are. conflating. the. two.

Ecmandu wrote:Your not using your philosophic jargon correctly ...

I hope you don't mind if I "Lol" again...

Take your time getting back to Karpel + don't feel like you need to let any continued discussion between us compromise it.

Ecmandu wrote:how does that photon not have an element of choice or will?

I can't stress enough how much I don't want you do compromise discussion with others to continue ours...

Karpel Tunnel wrote:This has to be online participation lesson 1 or perhaps 10, but somewhere early on.

You can't let others potential or actual declaring victory mean anything, or at least can't let it control your behavior, or then people with joy in repetition and people with unfounded confidence have control of you. (this last, just to tie it in to the issue of freewill, without making it mean either free will or determinism is the case).

But I do understand the feeling.

It has been a hightly effective tool both as a defense mechanism and as a kind of trollish move to combine repeating the same assertions with declarations of victory (a little mind reading is also a great flourish).

But if one let's it control one's behavior you literally become a character in someone else's fantasy.

We talked about this before with another zealot who I now ignore. I feel like Ecmandu is not quite as bad, or at least not in the same way.

My problem is I can't let go of the possibility of helping change the minds of people who believe in things that make the world worse. I've long been aware of things like Serendipper used to say about debates being pointless, and "the backfire effect" is my arch-nemesis: it seems like the better I refine my arguments, the more those I engage dig their heels in that their inferior argument is superior. I understand the psychology behind it and everything, but having spent a significant proportion of my lifetime mastering philosophy and argumentation techniques, it's demoralising to see that they still come to nothing. I'm wondering if it's only kids and smart people who know how to listen and learn - making my target of the remainder who make everything worse a poor choice on my part.

The defense mechanism you mention actually has a name: "Proof by Assertion" - the logical fallacy of continually restating an argument in spite of contradictions pointed out.

I don't actually care if I end up conforming to your analogy of becoming a character in someone else's fantasy - not just because this is kinda true for everyone including yourself - but because dumbasses like me feel a duty to try and enact change in the best way they can regardless of the cost to self *shakes my head at myself*.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Freewill exists

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue May 21, 2019 8:24 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
If a photon can be used to determine other photons how does that photon not have an element of choice or will ? Sure it still has to be a photon : that is
determinism ... but for a photon to have the quality of changing itself and others suggests an innate will in spite of the determinism of it needing a body
to exercise that will in the first place

Only biological organisms with a sufficiently complex mind can actually have free will and sub atomic particles have absolutely none
A photon in vacuum has to travel at the speed of light as this is a fundamental law of nature and one with precisely no free will at all
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Freewill exists

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue May 21, 2019 8:53 pm

Silhouette wrote:
My problem is I cannot let go of the possibility of helping change the minds of people who believe in things that make the world worse

All anyone can do is to provide the best arguments using all of the available evidence or proof and then present it as logically and precisely as possible
What happens after that is entirely beyond your control because only the one you are trying to convince can actually accept the argument in question

It can be frustrating to have one that you have made rejected but it is unfortunately an occupational hazard in online discourse
Mental energy can instead be much better employed on making the argument as linguistically and logically as perfect as possible

Also rejection may have nothing to do with the argument itself rather the bias or ignorance of the one you are trying to convince
Or maybe it is being rejected because it is flawed or fallacious in some way and it is therefore you who has to be convinced of this

No one has a monopoly on wisdom because no one gets it right all of the time. My own take on online discourse is to treat it as conversation
rather than argument as conversations are not about winning or losing but the free and open exchange of knowledge and ideas and opinions
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]