Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:50 am
[Socrates.... Schopenhauer]
Are you implying that they didn't benefit or get anything out of it?
No. I was asking you what you think is the benefit toward which they directed their deliberate, concerted disinformation.
Then why did they bother doing it?
For the hell of it? How should I know each philosopher's, historian's, scientist's, teacher's and writer's motivation?
I'm suggesting - well, more than just suggesting; stating - that philosophers don't usually co-ordinate their efforts, don't usually distort their own ideas, though they may be disrespectful of one another's, don't usually lie, and don't usually publish their obscure maunderings with a view to riling up the pitchfork-wielding peasantry.
[How have they co-ordinated and slanted these communications to persuade the public to do what for them? ]
You are currently talking about them. Centuries later. However they did it - it seems to have worked.
Ah! So, there's a dead philosopher's society in the Underworld, colluding with MSM to infiltrate the future consciousness of nations!
Now, that's deep !
Language represents all those things - nobody is denying or rejecting that. It still represents all of those things incompletely.
So? If that makes all language propaganda, why bother having all those other words for the functions of language?
So when you use language for representation, HOW do you decide what information to omit and what to include?
I could have sworn I explained that. It depends on the function and context of the particular communication.
[Show me how in the following examples I attempt to persuade
Balls are round.
100 C or 212 F.
a daffodil
Hello ]
I can't do that - the information is in your head, not mine.
If you can't see the persuasion in the communication itself, then the persuasion is not in the communication. Then the communication is not propaganda.
But if we ask these questions...
WHY are you saying the above?
WHAT intention or motive drove you to utter the above?
Which I have already answered in what you consider to be a non sequitur. You assume that each utterance was out of the void, rather than in response to something that happened "a priori". But, of course,
nothing happens in isolation; all communication is part of a continuous flow of events. Thus, propaganda isn't made up out of thin air: it's a fabric of disinformation woven from the strands of general preconception and misconception, history, current events, political climate, popular sentiment and the media available to broadcast communications.
WHY do you care about my motives? It didn't change your mind or persuade you to do anything. If it's not aimed at changing your mind or persuading you to do something, it's not propaganda. If it doesn't answer a question you asked or issue you raised or interest you expressed, it doesn't concern you.
[The truth which you've chosen to include at the expense of the truth which you've chosen to omit is always amplified through your own volition.]
[Or maybe a function of function.]
Non-sequitur. There is no a priori question when you are merely reporting on events you've witnessed.
A couple of lines ago, you had no idea why I wrote those things. Now you claim to know that I've witnesses Hello. I told you the a prioris of two of them. You still don't know the other two, though it wouldn't take a genius to guess.
At best the general question is "What happened?", and so it's entirely on you to determine which details are relevant/important, and which details to omit.
That's rather a broad question! Would take some context and framing to decide what's relevant. We really don't have time in a single lifespan to start with the Big Bang every time somebody asks "What happened?" Especially if what they really need to know is the boiling temperature of water.
If he waved "Hi!", he's not asking for a lecture on graphite production; he only wants a return greeting.]
Or looking to start a conversation?
Very possibly. So, my answering "Hello" signal that I have registered his presence and am benignly disposed. He now has the opportunity to make his intentions known.
[Including everything is impossible]
Nor is it conducive to communication to withhold information that your interlocutors may find relevant or important.
Then it is incumbent upon the interlocutor to follow up with more questions.
Personally, I have found that people are more often annoyed by too much unsolicited information than by brevity.
[OTH, including and excluding specific relevant information on the topic under consideration serves a purpose.]
[Did you notice how you suddenly changed contexts from the previous paragraph? I did...
Sharp!
The context was a conversation between two interlocutors. Now, suddenly, the context is about an "audience"?
It can be either. Or a lecture from parent to child. Or a study group with several people participating. Or a TED lecture. Or a protest with everybody shouting at once. Or a panel discussion. Or a debate. Or a magazine article. There are many kinds of communication, but i didn't want to type my fingers to the bone with examples for each.
You are talking cross-purposes...
Evidently.
So you are using distinctions to attain clarity. Weird.
I could think of no less weird method. Sorry.
