Impossibility of arguing with authority.

[TheVisionofEr]

If someone doesn't understand their own view, but has it on authority, it is impossible to use reason with them. Since, what they have is the jocund pleasure of the possession of the right to despise whoever disagrees with the authority. Only those who understand their views are movable by giving reasons. Usually, in this respect, the discussion never becomes dialectic, but rather serves to immunize the one with the view based on authority from reason as such. This is the case, for example, with all followers of various schools of thought political, scientific/philosophical or otherwise who merely have an inkling of the meaning of the teaching, without genuinely having mastered it. However, the pseudos of the mere inkling is not simply negative. It shows an inclination which may be healthy, a whiff of the truth without the attainment of it. A few feet up a snowy peak, but not the peak itself. In the attainment there may be, to be sure, only a relative truth, the prospect of a false peak, which is to say, only a more powerful understanding than is usually to be found corresponding, in the best cases, to the disputes among the greatest minds. Whether a supreme mind would ever be found, a mind possessed of simple truth, or is to be expected, is a dark question.

[Impenitent]

god says non believers are commies

commies say god is an opiate

and the cows in high heels claim logic is irrefutable... (I saw the pronunciation)

-Imp

[TheVisionofEr]

god says non believers are commies

commies say god is an opiate

and the cows in high heels claim logic is irrefutable... (I saw the pronunciation)

-Imp

Thank you for this summation.

However, this is the case only at the lower levels, which constitutes the larger part of the discussion or larger number of the discussants, and not at the level of those who understand the enumerated teachings and are most qualified to speak for them. For example, the discussions between Habermas and Ratzinger, or Russell's late life admission that Heidegger was not merely speaking on the level of logic and psychology, and thereby mistaken, in his claim that nichts nictet or that the nothing nothings. Obviously few Vienna Circle types have the intelligence of a Russell.

[Eodnhoj7]

If someone doesn't understand their own view, but has it on authority, it is impossible to use reason with them. Since, what they have is the jocund pleasure of the possession of the right to despise whoever disagrees with the authority. Only those who understand their views are movable by giving reasons. Usually, in this respect, the discussion never becomes dialectic, but rather serves to immunize the one with the view based on authority from reason as such. This is the case, for example, with all followers of various schools of thought political, scientific/philosophical or otherwise who merely have an inkling of the meaning of the teaching, without genuinely having mastered it. However, the pseudos of the mere inkling is not simply negative. It shows an inclination which may be healthy, a whiff of the truth without the attainment of it. A few feet up a snowy peak, but not the peak itself. In the attainment there may be, to be sure, only a relative truth, the prospect of a false peak, which is to say, only a more powerful understanding than is usually to be found corresponding, in the best cases, to the disputes among the greatest minds. Whether a supreme mind would ever be found, a mind possessed of simple truth, or is to be expected, is a dark question.

The fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated. All assertions are authoritative, within certain degrees, by nature.

[TheVisionofEr]

"The fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated. All assertions are authoritative, within certain degrees, by nature."

This is an occasion to be more clear. An authority is said in distinction to understanding for oneself. For example, Socrates in Plato gives a view about the principle of Justice. Anyone at all can repeat the words without understanding them or any effort. Because Socrates has thought through the issue, when presented with reasons against it, he can answer sensibly. But, when the politicians, for example, who only know that certain verbal formulas are effective in public discussion because they sound right to the public ear say the very same thing, they can not be reasoned with about it. Because they lack the same understanding.

Now, a more clear example. A great chess champion may suggest a means of training. Anyone at all can repeat what he says. But, clearly, they will not have the sense about Chess to know if it is really true. They may even be able to give superficially reasons why the advise is good, but, still, they will not have the understanding that allows the great champion to see on what the advice stands. In the worst cases they will have only the words and be like a parrot.

[Eodnhoj7]

"The fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated. All assertions are authoritative, within certain degrees, by nature."

This is an occasion to be more clear. An authority is said in distinction to understanding for oneself. For example, Socrates in Plato gives a view about the principle of Justice. Anyone at all can repeat the words without understanding them or any effort. Because Socrates has thought through the issue, when presented with reasons against it, he can answer sensibly. But, when the politicians, for example, who only know that certain verbal formulas are effective in public discussion because they sound right to the public ear say the very same thing, they can not be reasoned with about it. Because they lack the same understanding.

Now, a more clear example. A great chess champion may suggest a means of training. Anyone at all can repeat what he says. But, clearly, they will not have the sense about Chess to know if it is really true. They may even be able to give superficially reasons why the advise is good, but, still, they will not have the understanding that allows the great champion to see on what the advice stands. In the worst cases they will have only the words and be like a parrot.

While Socrates, as closest to the center point of the argument over principles, may represent the fullest state of authority relative to whatever principle he is discussing, all assertions made by any individual are still authority statements in and of themselves.

While one authority may be greater than or equal to another authority, a lesser authority is still an authority by assertion alone.

[RCSaunders]

Obviously few Vienna Circle types have the intelligence of a Russell.

The logical positivists were certainly idiots, but to put them below Russell and his idiotic belief in windowless monads and that concepts mean their definitions, a la Kant, is pretty low.

[TheVisionofEr]

The logical positivists were certainly idiots, but to put them below Russell and his idiotic belief in windowless monads and that concepts mean their definitions, a la Kant, is pretty low.

To decompose, partly, your bizare, not to say obnoxious, absurdity of a provocation. Leibniz was a great, not to say, supreme, thinker. And Kant didn't think that. Your error is in taking yourself, and correspondingly your own thoughts, for theirs (which is to say, in the translation, producing a BS burlesque of a grand guignol play).

[TheVisionofEr]

While Socrates, as closest to the center point of the argument over principles, may represent the fullest state of authority relative to whatever principle he is discussing, all assertions made by any individual are still authority statements in and of themselves.

While one authority may be greater than or equal to another authority, a lesser authority is still an authority by assertion alone.

I appreciate, in a dim way your meaning. But, it is nothing to do with what I wrote. And, the point is that "authority" is said of something one doesn't understand oneself (something taken on trust). Whereas we do understand many sayings, if not, all, of Socrates. At least when we study them and think them through.

This is all, one may add, complicated by Socrates being largely a sort of "character" in the writings of Plato (complications follow...).

[Eodnhoj7]

While Socrates, as closest to the center point of the argument over principles, may represent the fullest state of authority relative to whatever principle he is discussing, all assertions made by any individual are still authority statements in and of themselves.

While one authority may be greater than or equal to another authority, a lesser authority is still an authority by assertion alone.

I appreciate, in a dim way your meaning. But, it is nothing to do with what I wrote. And, the point is that "authority" is said of something one doesn't understand oneself (something taken on trust). Whereas we do understand many sayings, if not, all, of Socrates. At least when we study them and think them through.

This is all, one may add, complicated by Socrates being largely a sort of "character" in the writings of Plato (complications follow...).

What I am stating is that you have two authorities, one greater than and one lesser, both have equal validity in discussing the same subject if both are discussing the same subject both are aware of.

For example, both may be experts in politics. One is well read in politics of the west in the 17th, 18th and 19th century, one only in the 19th. Both as experts in politics, one greater than the other, can speak equally of the politics of the 19th.

[TheVisionofEr]

What I am stating is that you have two authorities, one greater than and one lesser, both have equal validity in discussing the same subject if both are discussing the same subject both are aware of.

I appreciate what you mean. It is true in the abstract. But, from the perspective of ordinary reason what it would mean would be that our own reason is an authority.

That is exactly the opposite of how I am using the word authority. What I mean is something our own reason does not understand or admit, but which because we trust the person, or because we get it in a classroom, we accept. For instance, if a grandmother tells someone with a particular love of their family something, they might accept it. Or, because the authority of the classroom and of the "graeat" figures of the tradtion, scientific or otherwise, say it.

What I'm getting at is the case where we, from our own reason, admit we were wrong. We may see we were wrong from the standard of our own inner sense of reason, but we may not want to admit it. Since that could be bad for not only our own ego, but for our fortunes in the world.

[Eodnhoj7]

What I am stating is that you have two authorities, one greater than and one lesser, both have equal validity in discussing the same subject if both are discussing the same subject both are aware of.

I appreciate what you mean. it is true in the abstract. But, from the perspective of ordinary reason what it would mean would be that our own reason is an authority.

That is exactly the opposite of how I am using the word authority. What I mean is something our own reason does not understand or admit, but which because we trust the person, or because we get it in a classroom, we accept. For instance, if a grandmother tells someone with a particular love of their family something, they might accept it. Or, because the authority of the classroom and of the "graeat" figures of the tradtion, scientific or otherwise, say it.

What I'm getting at is the case where we, from our own reason, admit we were wrong. We may see we were wrong from the standard of our own inner sense of reason, but we may not want to admit it. Since that could be bad for not only our own ego, but for our fortunes in the world.

If it is asserted it has authority. Grades may differ, like you claim, but if it exists some degree of truth exists within it. We are judged by the assertions we make as they cycle to form the person we are. Individual reasoning, objective through self reflection, is authoritative as it determines individual identity.

[TheVisionofEr]

If it is asserted it has authority. Grades may differ, like you claim, but if it exists some degree of truth exists within it. We are judged by the assertions we make as they cycle to form the person we are. Individual reasoning, objective through self reflection, is authoritative as it determines individual identity.

The word bat can be used in different ways. A thing to hit a baseball. An animal.

I grant there is a sense to what you say, but it is based on laying down a different meaning of the word authority than I have intended.

[Eodnhoj7]

If it is asserted it has authority. Grades may differ, like you claim, but if it exists some degree of truth exists within it. We are judged by the assertions we make as they cycle to form the person we are. Individual reasoning, objective through self reflection, is authoritative as it determines individual identity.

The word bat can be used in different ways. A thing to hit a baseball. An animal.

I grant there is a sense to what you say, but it is based on laying down a different meaning of the word authority than I have intended.

Thus it is possible to argue with an authority.

[Arising_uk]

... Russell and his idiotic belief in windowless monads ...

Where did Russell argue for this?