To debate clearly I feel all ideas/conclusions should be stowed unless arrived at independently. Is this what you are saying? How people are so easily and potently indoctrinated by ideology without realizing? That the only source of discussion should be from the self and nothing external?
This is not what I understood the topic to be. What I mean is that the premise is, MUST BE, supplied ad hominem. So that one can speak to the human being as exists in the granted premise. Old Socratic dialogic. The way now in power is sheer sophistry. The pretense that there is an “argument” independent of human beings and thus the tacit exclusion of “value”, to use the current term (a strange dogmatic vert-frei deliberation, deliberation as mere techne or instrument of nothing). Our sophistry is based on the presupposition that value is not scientific, therefore the human must be excluded from the discussion. The very act of discussion implies the value or altitude as what gives light, the nobility, of discussion as scrutiny into being. If human beings find satisfaction, importance, in discussion, discussion itself is “subjective”, unscientific, by the current state monopoly on metaphysics. The whole procedure is idiotic. The radical and naked exclusion of philosophy from academic “philosophy”. What is the cause: large scale education, ergo, sheer depredation in the service of technology.
Dialogic is not sham-democratic “debate”. Even that much is impossible to communicate to the idiot mind formed of state manipulation. I have zero interest in debate. This is a forced perversion of the current state tyranny that depreciates the human being so radically only “subjective” debate makes sense to the populations. The real sense of collective research is banished.
My idea of ad hominem is when one begins to insult the other individual instead of focus on the conversation. I do not blame them for they do not understand most often. They focus on the attempt of making the others character look weak, deterrent of the topic, a fallacy.
I agree with the idea of socratic dialogic, I just don’t use the same terminology due to independent thought/perception, I haven’t adopted the terminology yet because I have focused more on self thinking rather than reading books, seeking inconsistencies in argument, character, ideals. It’s common sense but common sense is not too common these days for the general public, which I am apart of still of course by force of will and misconceptions of society on average, just not in the form of thinking.
In simpler terms, science has become a method of indoctrination through an authoritative stance. A type of method in which one only learns to think in sense of literal only and not be open minded to metaphorical and interpretation. The value of repeating old knowledge is the unique new person, the diversity in perception and unique thinking, who repeats it, for new ideas may come and be added on.
Your choice of words to the simple man would appear insulting using “idiot mind”, I feel one should attempt at associating context of the other individual into the factor to make it as easy to understand as possible. An unbiaseness in speaking, neutrality. Criticism is grand but the other must learn to accept such as well.
You’re being seduced to place warm emotions and consideration for others above the scrutiny of the investigation! The ability to call an idiot an idiot is of infinite value to intelligent discussion. We could skirt the issue by using less blunt words, but then we lose clarity in the mercury of the nuances which would amount to putting velvet gloves on the tiger of truth.
Because of a presupposition: everything is “individual” under the wholly unthought out, taken for granted: conception of “subjectivity”, or the commonplace existentialism. Each one has the right to interpret existence in their own way. This leads to a dreamlike impotence of all discussion, and sheer power controls everything. Since in institutions the correct and incorrect are laid down by main force. All conversation then drifts from what is serious, the views to be taken by institutions and the state. By education and the courts. As soon as we admit that some answers or statements are right (correct), and some wrong, with respect to anything at all, then we see that it is crazy not to regard some people as idiots. And not to be squeamish about saying it. An idiot thinks they are right, when they are wrong. The whole issue is in the very trite reality that people are often wrong about quite a number of trivial things while claiming to be right. Idiots. It is right to point out idiocy, a clear state of affairs one often encounters.
Thesis: There’s no “conversation”. Only “individuals”. Why? : You say it: “The value of repeating old knowledge is the unique new person, the diversity in perception and unique thinking, who repeats it, for new ideas may come and be added on.”
The “conversation” (or, at length, the “argument”) is nothing else but the way noises are understood by the ones there. There is no “argument” living by itself to take up defense of itself.
Problem: One confuses this, your statement, with this: Enjoyment of variety for its own sake without consideration of whether the thing makes sense or not. Insight is rare, idiosyncratically worthless opinions are commonplace and bequeathed to this forum constantly.
You must first peak the ignorant mans curiosity, before disciplining him about it. This is where we sometimes miss the psychological point. Some are not reachable through discussion at all due to their ego completely disregarding the subconscious, an only literal type of thinking, an entrapment of huge magnitude by their own psyche and only through their last moments before ceasing do they realize or understand, in the flashing of their life before their eyes.
I agree that political correctness is trash but you must understand and I know you do that they do not understand and they cannot be fully blamed for that due to their being indoctrinated, a lot of times through childhood and when they are still gullible, they disregard the subconscious, the intuition or what they deem “magic”, the natural power of the psyche and seeking/understanding of wisdom. I believe they should be tested, but you must be humble in doing such due to the primal instincts embedded in us all, especially more so when one is thinking in literal sense or only one type of specific context. We must understand that they do not understand and the why, who, what, when, how of this.
I agree that the “offense” is created by the individual perception of lacking understanding of diverse context/thought and insecurity but since you understand this and I understand this we have the power and responsibility in trying to create curiosity in them to seek independent education. Since we understand a lot of individuals are blinded by smoke and mirrors that the ego manifests as truth, we also know the proper way in reaching them to try and offer help, the issue is when we waste too much time trying to reach them to come past their egotistical manner of thought. That is when one may choose to turn and leave or if they care about that person and have hope for them they keep trying to use different contexts, analogies, etc, to discover the way they think outside of a “literal” only sense and to try and create some sort of relation between idea which may link two individuals (agreement).
Overall I do agree with you about some or most individuals being this way objectively, I am just stating what I personally deem the best method for trying to get an individual trapped by ego to think. If they resort to fallacy in debate then you can see you have won due to their anger, insecurity about that idea due to it being an unknown truth one’s subconscious may understand. This is a sign of making progress, the first step. The second step is setting them on the path of proving you wrong or an embedded competition/curiosity, the archetype of the “rebel” in a sense.
I view the ignorant differently than the idiot.
To me the ignorant is someone who still possesses curiosity and their spark not lost but only lacks understanding of their knowing.
An idiot is someone who is consumed by tyrannical ego completely and becomes willfully ignorant due to their literal sense only type thought process. They liveth in death and it shalt be their food.
How would you proceed then? Of course, it’s true, in more general terms, human beings are superficial as hell, and it’s all up with them most of the time as long as the multitude shares, in the main, their manner of making empty noises as though to pretend understanding.
I’m not interested in debate. But in clearing up the obstacles to investigation. The whole talk of “fallacy” is an obstacle. It implies that rules are to think for us. Instead of thinking. That made a certain sense, for instance, in the disputations, which were collective research into the truth, of the medievals, because they had a shared goal, were working together, and moreover understood that the fallacy was only relative, and simply a matter of the person involved. For instance, if I speak of a “question begging”, it means only that I don’t accept a premise, and I want to alert the other investigator that they are going on without me. It is never a question of simply a “fallacy” in the sense that this is said in academic and in scientism circles. No such exists for thinking people. Things make sense, or they don’t, that is so. But, it is on the basis of thinking genuinely, not pointing to some rule that then is the measure of the subject matter, rather than letting the subject matter be its own measure.
But, this is very harsh. And repudiates all concessions through courage and superlative effort to the not throwing pearls rule. Rather like not cutting open the belly of a pig, standing shivering in the American snow, and so not letting the red blood spell out their condition, even the most painful way to truth is blocked, since it is supposed to be because of a lack in their innate faculties, and not for the sake of avoiding the nuisance of not being understood. Though, I must admit I have noticed this recalcitrance of character as what is not deliberate but unchosen and constitutional.