Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:05 am

ken wrote:
Do you need a reason to think that your Self exists

I would first need to know what a Self is or how it is being defined
And until I do know that then I cannot really answer your question

This is sad to ask, but do you want to know what a Self is or how 'Self' is being defined?

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
Do you need a reason to think that your Self exists

I would first need to know what a Self is or how it is being defined
And until I do know that then I cannot really answer your question

This is sad to ask but do you want to know what a Self is or how Self is being defined

I want to know both but why is it sad for you to have to ask me these questions
Do you think I should already know the answers and if so why do you think this

Would it be better for me not to ask questions and just make assumptions
You want clarifying questions to be asked so I do not know why you are sad

I recently told you that I know nothing so how can I learn unless I do ask questions do you have any idea
Can you please remember from now on that I know nothing as this is the second time I have told you this

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:06 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

I would first need to know what a Self is or how it is being defined
And until I do know that then I cannot really answer your question

This is sad to ask but do you want to know what a Self is or how Self is being defined

I want to know both but why is it sad for you to have to ask me these questions

The reason why I said, "This is sad to ask ..." was wholly because you did NOT ask Me any clarifying question here. I find it sad that I have to ask you if you want to know some thing or not.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:06 amDo you think I should already know the answers and if so why do you think this

I certainly do NOT think you should already know the answers.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:06 amWould it be better for me not to ask questions and just make assumptions

How many times have I suggested it is much better to NOT make assumptions, and, that I WANT to be asked questions and the more clarifying questions asked of Me, the better.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:06 amYou want clarifying questions to be asked so I do not know why you are sad

Because you did NOT ask any clarifying questions.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:06 amI recently told you that I know nothing so how can I learn unless I do ask questions do you have any idea

But you did NOT ask any questions.

I have previously suggested that one of the easiest, quickest, and simplest ways to learn some thing new is to ask questions, and, be OPEN to the answers.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:06 amCan you please remember from now on that I know nothing as this is the second time I have told you this

I NEVER said any thing contrary to this.

WHY did you even make this assumption?

ken wrote:
I have previously suggested that one of the easiest quickest and simplest ways to learn some thing new is to ask questions

I prefer to frame questions as statements but if you insist on only answering questions there is nothing I can do about this

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:43 pm I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?...
If the answer is no, how do you think this affects philosophical arguments? Are some debates simply meaningless to get into with the intent of convincing the other person?

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done some interesting research into this. One of the things he points out is that people "reason" in two different ways. One, is to "reason" for the purpose of finding truth. The other is not so much to "reason' as merely to "rationalize," or find some line of defence for, an action or preference one already has.

In the first case, one lets facts, data and evidence (and, of course, the basic laws of logic) modify one's mind, because truth is the goal and learning is the necessary process.

In the second case, one has limited interest in facts, data, evidence, and even the basic principles of logic: what one is after is just enough of these to allow one to close the question off, and to continue to believe what one has always believed. Once that goal is reached, learning stops, and one is no longer moved by better arguments or new data.

Many arguments are type 2. Very few are type 1. We'd maybe like to think that human beings are truth-seeking machines, but they're just not. For the most part, they tend to defend what they already think rather than change their minds...even when something comes along that puts considerable strain on their previous beliefs, and makes sticking to them a bit of an effort of the will and a bit of a project of denial.

Now, some people are perhaps more motivated by type 1 reasoning than by type 2: but psychologically, people are disposed away from type 1, because it's hard and costly.

What Haidt says makes the difference is whether or not failure to have the truth (rather than a mere rationalization defending a falsehood) is going to be sufficiently costly or not. Will the penalty for believing something less than the whole truth be sufficient to outweigh the cognitive upset involved in changing one's mind? Will one be called to significant account for what one believes? Is anyone watching? Will one be significantly disadvantaged if one persists as one is? If you will, then you'll need the truth -- it's your only chance of defence, security, avoidance of pain, or of avoidance of some other unpleasant situation. But if you won't, or at least think you won't, or the penalty for being wrong is not very big, then perhaps the upset involved in having to change one's mind (and maybe alter one's behaviour, relationships or lifestyle as well) will likely seem too great to warrant a rethinking. And in that case, people are inclined simply to keep believing whatever has previously worked for them, since doing so saves any upset. And defending even a bad or weak position seems better than accepting the cost of having to reorganize one's life.

So maybe the question moves to a new question: what's the penalty for failing to grasp a particular truth? And do people believe there is anything significantly costly about preferring less-than-the-truth about whatever question it is?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:43 pm I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?

Language does not exist alone, and for that reason yes, it's possible. The right words are as close to the right time as consciousness is to life. For example, convincing someone who has just crawled across the desert that water is the nectar of the gods is made effortless by good timing, however wrong timing with the same words during a hurricane or flood could well inhibit the convincing.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Will one be called to significant account for what one believes

One should never be held to account merely for believing or thinking something as that is simply unacceptable
For it constitutes a thought crime. Instead one should only start holding someone to account for what they do

Immanuel Can wrote:
So maybe the question moves to a new question : what is the penalty for failing to grasp a particular truth
And do people believe there is anything significantly costly about preferring less than the truth about whatever question it is

There is no penalty for failing to grasp a particular truth because everyone should have the freedom to think anything that they want to
There might however be a cost to not accepting said truth but that is still better than forcing someone to think as society wants them to

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Will one be called to significant account for what one believes

One should never be held to account merely for believing or thinking something as that is simply unacceptable
For it constitutes a thought crime. Instead one should only start holding someone to account for what they do

I mean something much more straightforward.

You will not be "held to account" if you disbelieve in spontaneous flight as a theory. But you will be "held to account" if you think you can fly without wings...and it's gravity that will hold you to that account. If you know that, then you're going to be more interested in the truth about gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, you may well decide to disregard everyone's warnings, and continue to believe in wingless levitation, even if the gravity-believers are totally right and backed by the abundance of evidence and good reasoning.

What "holds us to account" in such cases is not per se each other, or other people, but rather it's the true facts of the case, which issue in the natural penalty associated with the outcome of the belief. Of course, it is true that a justice official may be one of the ways we are "held to account," but he/she is far from the only way, and his/her way is not correlated automatically with truth, since some laws are arbitrary or even unjust. But many beliefs, like belief in gravity, are totally impartial...they will do what they will do, and that's all. And that's what I'm speaking about.

ken wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:39 am If we take the word 'every' out of this sentence, then as you have already stated, SOME people walk away from the same speech "convinced" while others are not "convinced". So, you answered your own question about; "Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?" by saying, "There are people who gain a better understanding from a speech from one person that they would not necessarily have gained from another person. Therefore, it is possible to convince any one of any thing by just saying the right thing.

That's not to say that example can be extrapolated to anything. Just because Ben Shapiro could convince someone of conservationism better than a 2 year old, does not mean Ben Shapiro, or anyone else, could convince someone that "ducks have gills because 1+1 = 3".

Obviously it is possible to "convince" any (some) one of any (some) thing by just saying the right thing. The 'right' thing implies it does or achieves what it is set out to do and achieve anyway.

Obviously I'm not trying to pre-propose that the "right thing" actually exists for every conversation. I can sort of see how it sounds like it now, but I'm trying to find out if there is a 'right thing' in any given conversation.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. However, My definition and understanding of 'belief' fills in the gaps and paints a much better and fuller picture of what IS Life, Itself.

I think that if you're trying to tell people they're incorrect about their feelings, and their intuitions about how belief works are wrong, you won't manage to convince many.

So, again you know the answer to your question, if some people are better at convincing other people of things, then it is possible to convince some people of some things by saying the right thing.

That's not the question of this thread. It's about convincing anyone of anything, true or very obviously wrong.

ken wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:44 amIf by 'any thing' do you mean absolutely any thing, including that which is absolutely and obviously false, wrong, and incorrect? Or, do you just mean that which is true, right, and correct? Either way the answer to your question should already be obvious to you.

I mean literally anything, including the false things. If I just meant the correct things, I think the question would be very linear.

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Will one be called to significant account for what one believes

One should never be held to account merely for believing or thinking something as that is simply unacceptable
For it constitutes a thought crime. Instead one should only start holding someone to account for what they do

I mean something much more straightforward

You will not be held to account if you disbelieve in spontaneous flight as a theory. But you will be held to account if you think you can fly with
out wings ... and it is gravity that will hold you to that account. If you know that then you re going to be more interested in the truth about gravity
If you dont believe in gravity you may well decide to disregard everyones warnings and continue to believe in wingless levitation even if the gravity believers are totally right and backed by the abundance of good reasoning and evidence

What holds us to account in such cases is not per se each other or other people but rather it is the true facts of the case which issue in the natural penalty associated with the outcome of the belief. Of course it is true that a justice official may be one of the ways we are held to account but he / she is far from the only way and his / her way is not correlated automatically with truth since some laws are arbitrary or even unjust. But many beliefs like belief in gravity are totally impartial ... they will do what they will do and that is all. And that is what I am speaking about now

Fair enough but usually when one is held to account it is because of controversial opinions rather than ignorance of natural phenomena
Though the example you gave is a poor one since no one actually thinks they can fly without wings but I get what you are trying to say

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:31 pm
Fair enough but usually when one is held to account it is because of controversial opinions rather than ignorance of natural phenomena

Not in the case of which I'm speaking. I'm answering the question the OP asks, in general. That's the issue of whether or not people are willing to listen to words and become convinced thereby. So I was speaking of whether and when individuals are in a frame of mind to change their views by way of persuasion. I was not speaking of whether or not our opinions thus formed are received well by others. That's a different issue, and only appears after the individual's opinion has been decided.

Though the example you gave is a poor one since no one actually thinks they can fly without wings but I get what you are trying to say

The illustration was designed to do no more than that. I'm glad you see what I was saying.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:21 pm

ken wrote:
I have previously suggested that one of the easiest quickest and simplest ways to learn some thing new is to ask questions

I prefer to frame questions as statements

But statements are NOT questions.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:21 pmbut if you insist on only answering questions there is nothing I can do about this

I do NOT 'answer' statements. I ask clarifying questions, challenge, agree with, and/or accept statements. Only questions can be answered. So, I only answer questions, NOT statements.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:28 pm

ken wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:39 am If we take the word 'every' out of this sentence, then as you have already stated, SOME people walk away from the same speech "convinced" while others are not "convinced". So, you answered your own question about; "Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?" by saying, "There are people who gain a better understanding from a speech from one person that they would not necessarily have gained from another person. Therefore, it is possible to convince any one of any thing by just saying the right thing.

That's not to say that example can be extrapolated to anything. Just because Ben Shapiro could convince someone of conservationism better than a 2 year old, does not mean Ben Shapiro, or anyone else, could convince someone that "ducks have gills because 1+1 = 3".

Then the answer to your question is; it is NOT possible to convince any one of 'any thing' (if by 'any thing' you mean absolutely any thing).

You might have to define exactly what you mean by 'any one' AND by 'any thing', in order for us to be able to answer your question correctly, for you.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:28 pm

Obviously it is possible to "convince" any (some) one of any (some) thing by just saying the right thing. The 'right' thing implies it does or achieves what it is set out to do and achieve anyway.

Obviously I'm not trying to pre-propose that the "right thing" actually exists for every conversation. I can sort of see how it sounds like it now, but I'm trying to find out if there is a 'right thing' in any given conversation.

There are countless different conversations, so there would probably be just as many countless different ways for them to proceed. Therefore, I doubt very much there could even be a 'right thing' in any of the countless given conversations.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:28 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with this. However, My definition and understanding of 'belief' fills in the gaps and paints a much better and fuller picture of what IS Life, Itself.

I think that if you're trying to tell people they're incorrect about their feelings, and their intuitions about how belief works are wrong, you won't manage to convince many.

Well I am NOT trying to do either of those things.

By the way, what are your intuitions about how belief works? And, is that intuition the same for all people?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:28 pm

So, again you know the answer to your question, if some people are better at convincing other people of things, then it is possible to convince some people of some things by saying the right thing.

That's not the question of this thread. It's about convincing anyone of anything, true or very obviously wrong.

Well obviously we need to know who the 'anyone' is and what the 'anything' is, before we could successfully answer this question, the way it is proposed with the countless variables that are attached to it.

If you want to find and know the answer instantly, then answer this question; Can 'you' be convinced of anything?

If you can NOT be convinced of anything, then why would you even think any one else could be?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:28 pm

ken wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:44 amIf by 'any thing' do you mean absolutely any thing, including that which is absolutely and obviously false, wrong, and incorrect? Or, do you just mean that which is true, right, and correct? Either way the answer to your question should already be obvious to you.

I mean literally anything, including the false things. If I just meant the correct things, I think the question would be very linear.

Well the answer to your question should be completely obvious, by now.

Also, could there be a set of 'right words', to false things, which could convince 'you' of any thing.?

ken wrote:
Only questions can be answered so I only answer questions NOT statements

I will try to remember not to frame questions as open ended statements from now on then
Not that I ask many questions anyway though I may possibly start asking more from now on