Thanks for taking the time, truly. But it made no more sense that the last one. We did not all go to university you know. I am not "philosophically sophisticated", at least, I am not aware of it if I am. I do not even know what it means really.
I think you are being disingenuous. This summary is simple enough, and does not require a degree in philosophy: And what is meant by critical thought is Reason's own self-criticism... the Socratic awareness that 'I know I do not know'. This is really quite a liberating thought. It's this sort of reflective criticism that makes a mockery of all ideologies [dogmatic forms of Knowledge].
I'm with you guys on this. I said it in another post, but I've seen a few of the more combative people on here, outright who only seem to get involved to win, relapse. And I don't think it's a stretch to say it's related. I mean if you're not at some kind of peace...
Apparently, according to the dictionary https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disingenuous Someone who is disingenuous is slightly dishonest and insincere in what they say. Synonyms: cunning, sly, designing. What the fuck!? I respectfully ask for clarification and just get my character attacked. I am out of here!
Disingenuous again... or a lack of humor. And I use these as mutually exclusive terms, for someone who is disingenuous can be so humorously. It's this cult of sincerity... otherwise known as seriousness, that undermines the more artful approaches to a topic, and to argument in general.
Seriousness = a cult of sincerity! What does that even mean? Take you head out your arse and take a sniff of the real world! Humour? No, I don't lack humour. But I am, in your eyes, sly and insincere. Well, you are a superior and self-righteous fuck!
c It is a reference to Sartre. According to him, the 'sin of seriousness' is taking Reason too seriously. The cult of sincerity/ rationalism began with Rousseau. You ask me to elucidate something. I do. You take offence. I wonder why I even bother. You only illustrate why 'arguing' on the internet is a waste of time.
I took offence when you made it personal and attacked my character i.e. my sincerity. That is why you illustrate why 'arguing' on the internet is a waste of time. You cannot even clarify something without belittling the questioner. Argh!
Slow down, and re-read it. And look for the meaning that is invested in the words. In my vocabulary, it is perhaps a positive trait to be a little disingenuous, where one is not utterly sincere. I was exercising some disbelief toward your confession of ignorance. It seems I believed wrong.
You are looking at this all wrong. Yes, it's true - studies have shown that when 2 sides are given well-researched and logical opposing arguments to their belief, they tend to hold their original position even more strongly than before, when the logical course of action would be to question their belief. Yes, a lot of arguments degenerate quickly (not that common on this forum, however), into name-calling or something else. If I see posts here that are angry or contributing nothing, I waste no time in responding. But the point of an argument is NOT to change the other person's mind. As @Buzz Lightyear has pointed out, the point of it is to deepen one's understanding, and perhaps change one's own point of view. If someone enters an argument to change the other's point of view (without giving logical arguments or questioning herself), then it is not going to be constructive and you can stop continuing that discussion. I could cite specific examples on this forum when someone has learned something from discussions (which someone else might call an argument). Have I changed my mind on things in the past? Absolutely. As you point out, it occurs over time, from learning, but that includes what is learned from internet discussions. So you get to decide what gets debated and what doesn't? Why is it okay to debate certain theological issues but not God's existence? If God did not exist, why would it make sense to discuss the theological issues that presupposed the existence of God? I just made a post about the Gnostic Gospels, so your post will be useful, I plan on looking at those links you have provided. So you can see how already there is useful information to be gleaned (assuming that you think it is useful, otherwise you would not have posted it). Agree.
My thinking was that someone could get stressed out by the argument and have in the past turned to porn to deal with stress.
You're probably not going to change the mind of your interlocutor by arguing but you might help someone reading it if you dispell some false notions that could harm them. Arguing on the internet is often a waste of productive time, but it's better than wasting time fapping to extreme porn.
Sorry to hijack the thread but.. Coming in to tell you not to make these kind of posts is "spouting bs" now is it? If these are the kind of posts we allow on a forum about recovery from addiction, I'm just, blown away quite frankly.
Never said heroin wasn't addictive. I said imo porn is more addictive. I really do give a shit about your opinion. I've been physically dependant on heroin, and I'm addicted to pornography - porn is far harder to quit. Nothing you say can change that for me. I can recommend opiates to whoever I want.
The article is great, and according to my opinion describes arguing pros and cons (actually no pros) exactly as it should.