I think the issue with debate and the exercise of logos as common ground for dialogue is that not only requires a privileged socialization educational track from back in childhood (and not completely dependent on school curriculum but any life experience), but also that the subjects involved can't be detached from the built knowledge in question nor its relational dimension, taking in account what philosophers like Husserl called intersubjectivity or the bases that constructivists (and then constructionists) would later develop (in a quite poorly diffused way to the public out from academic ellites). In that sense, I think it's no good to merely sit and enjoy feeling superior or disdainful about others but attempt to assimilate their epistemological approach to the world and discuss from there instead of your own frame.
My thoughts on dispassion:
- You did nothing wrong by discussing the subject
- As long as they didn't BLAME you for bringing it up, I see no problem if they don't feel comfortable discussing it. That is, I'm fine if someone cannot detach from, say, a traumatic event or a personally distressing topic to discuss it over coffee.
- However, I don't think being distressed validates the truth of someone's views if they are biased. I don't really jump on board the 'every perspective is valid' train.
There's a difference between becoming biased about something and just not wanting to spend mental focus on it -- the latter is a lot more reasonable sounding to me. I don't much understand the former, aside from events so traumatic that they mentally unhinge the best of us. But getting sort of biased and opinionated on a routine basis...not so good
- To this end, what bothers me most is if someone is distressed because he/she clearly holds an incorrect view on the topic. If the distress is just raw emotion, kind of like hating some flavors of ice cream, not a more reflected one, then i just give it to people on the other hand. But if it's reflected I have to kick myself not to challenge the assumption.
- You did nothing wrong by discussing the subject
- As long as they didn't BLAME you for bringing it up, I see no problem if they don't feel comfortable discussing it. That is, I'm fine if someone cannot detach from, say, a traumatic event or a personally distressing topic to discuss it over coffee.
- However, I don't think being distressed validates the truth of someone's views if they are biased. I don't really jump on board the 'every perspective is valid' train.
There's a difference between becoming biased about something and just not wanting to spend mental focus on it -- the latter is a lot more reasonable sounding to me. I don't much understand the former, aside from events so traumatic that they mentally unhinge the best of us. But getting sort of biased and opinionated on a routine basis...not so good
- To this end, what bothers me most is if someone is distressed because he/she clearly holds an incorrect view on the topic. If the distress is just raw emotion, kind of like hating some flavors of ice cream, not a more reflected one, then i just give it to people on the other hand. But if it's reflected I have to kick myself not to challenge the assumption.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
― Aristotle, Metaphysics
Pretty much this. Most people cannot differentiate between discussing an idea for the sake of discussing it and viewing someone as advocating said idea. I have had this problem many times. As a result, if you bring up something, they may have thought you actually thought it and were advocating it- meaning their view of you is now affected. I am assuming you did your part to emphasize you were discussing the ideas for the sake of discussing them and not advocating them. That is sometimes not enough though. Ultimately what it comes down to is their inability to consider things without feeling the need to judge and either accept or reject whatever they are considering. I mean, how well do they know you? If you are bringing up these ideas that they find repulsive out of the blue at a social event when they were probably just looking for casual conversation and not intellectual conversation, it may have come off as unusual and given them to more reason to suspect you believed what you were saying (and furthermore that you were trying to convince them as well).
It is surprising, but not that surprising. I would expect different from history Ph.D. candidates.However, I have encountered other "educated" people who cannot think in this way. It is the main reason why I do not discuss philosophy with people unless they have a clear demonstrated interest in it. In my experience, most educated people, even people with doctorates, only want to make chitchat at social events and save any serious discussion for formal classroom settings. Additionally, one of my professors described this distinction as living a 'double life' since people who tend to be able to consider things for the sake of considering them go into a sort of head space that can be somewhat disturbing to most people. He said that he would do this sometimes but then would turn it off an go back to "living like a pig" (his words) so that he could immerse himself in pleasures and live life like everyone else does, making idle chitchat when socializing and not caring about intellectual concerns.
D
Deleted member 16771
I think I did my bit in prefacing what I was about to say, and it was in the context of the conversation, so...
In general though, I think it's probably a shame that some people are just 'heavy' by default and it's the light stuff that winds them up, and yet it's just not socially acceptable to be this way.
Academic achievements somewhat surprisingly do not indicate an open or mature mind. That being said, I do not know enough about the people in question to say wether or not they are immature.
I will say that wisdom is far more valuable than knowledge.
I will say that wisdom is far more valuable than knowledge.
I'd very much agree.
There's a recent trend of remarkably idiotic people with degrees. It's tainted my view of academia considerably.
I think that is an important discussion, genetics, empathy, psychobiolgy. Maybe they are not ready, or maybe they see something you do not. I used to think like them too. Perhaps these students want to see everyone get along. I dont know.
On a side note;
I do not think it's a good idea for anyone to give themselves credit as more intellectually advanced than these people, if that's indeed true. That is pathetic.
I often see people throw around quotes from dead (or living) people whose historians>advocates>parrots say they are intelligent. Not dissing those thinkers though. But it's so easy to throw quotes and videos around and pretend you are the master of the universe.
I will not forget what Carl Jung said about being 'his personality being examined by a strange mind'..If I am parroting, just punch me.
I am sensitive to the discussions on evo biology gender race etc, but in the bigger picture I think it's quite a genius tool to separate people with certain ideas and perhaps that is for the best. In other ways, it is (or can be) used to make people not harm each other so much or enslave each other. sociopaths are another thing and thats another territory.
On a side note;
I do not think it's a good idea for anyone to give themselves credit as more intellectually advanced than these people, if that's indeed true. That is pathetic.
I often see people throw around quotes from dead (or living) people whose historians>advocates>parrots say they are intelligent. Not dissing those thinkers though. But it's so easy to throw quotes and videos around and pretend you are the master of the universe.
I will not forget what Carl Jung said about being 'his personality being examined by a strange mind'..If I am parroting, just punch me.
I am sensitive to the discussions on evo biology gender race etc, but in the bigger picture I think it's quite a genius tool to separate people with certain ideas and perhaps that is for the best. In other ways, it is (or can be) used to make people not harm each other so much or enslave each other. sociopaths are another thing and thats another territory.
Impact Character
folding paper cranes ⭐
I read: "not everyone is capable of switching easily into another mind/perspective just for the sake of understanding it."
..I once knew a very interesting prof in media studies.. I liked the richness of what he said.. but when I experienced a conversation with him was rather about fighting for prestige.. I left.
D
Deleted member 16771
I happened upon this old thread by accident, but I have some updates.
He and I are still friends, and socialise regularly in groups, but I have noticed that he simply cannot or will not process emotionally weighty topics.
I've had a bit of a personally tough year, and whenever he would ask how I am, and I would start to tell him, I could feel his discomfort rising exponentially. He would become nervous and agitated, his voice would become clipped, &c.
I've learned to do a kind of 'reverse reassurance' with him where if anything personal comes up I'll keep it short and finish with something dismissive like 'It'll be fine, though' so he can go back to his comfort zone as rapidly as possible.
It might be the case that I was being a dick in my OP story there, but to be perfectly honest I don't think I am a dick. I may have wanted to push the conversation into more interesting and challenging ground, but I was overwhelmed by his response. I think this might have been a simple case of two people encountering one another who process and approach the world quite differently.
He and I are still friends, and socialise regularly in groups, but I have noticed that he simply cannot or will not process emotionally weighty topics.
I've had a bit of a personally tough year, and whenever he would ask how I am, and I would start to tell him, I could feel his discomfort rising exponentially. He would become nervous and agitated, his voice would become clipped, &c.
I've learned to do a kind of 'reverse reassurance' with him where if anything personal comes up I'll keep it short and finish with something dismissive like 'It'll be fine, though' so he can go back to his comfort zone as rapidly as possible.
It might be the case that I was being a dick in my OP story there, but to be perfectly honest I don't think I am a dick. I may have wanted to push the conversation into more interesting and challenging ground, but I was overwhelmed by his response. I think this might have been a simple case of two people encountering one another who process and approach the world quite differently.
D
Deleted member 16771
INTJ in hiding.
[/HINDSIGHT]P.S. Thank you to everybody who managed to suppress their 'he's a prick' instincts when commenting on this thread.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,232
- 246,606
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
D
Deleted member 16771
Lmao, stop!
I meant that we were probably particularly opposite types of people when it came to that.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,232
- 246,606
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
D
Deleted member 16771
HAAAAhahahalolol ok I'm done
Interesting. People just have different perspectives, that's all. I was having a somewhat similar conversation with my mentor yesterday. She was lamenting that her new team weren't as efficient as we had been, yaddah, yaddah. To her, she felt constantly misunderstood and I saw why. To my previous colleagues, she's high strung and overly competitive while my previous colleagues have always been more phlegmatic and uncomfortable about any discourse that involved gaining power or required work. Yet I still love these people. They do their jobs well, my ex mentor is just unable to inspire them. My ex mentor is just annoyed to no end. It was funny. I smirked at most of it and told her what my mother always told me: each and every one of us is of different make and while we don't have to change for them, it is better to stay diplomatic and to reserve judgment.
All is well. You're a good person for maturing greatly, Hos.
All is well. You're a good person for maturing greatly, Hos.
D
Deleted member 16771
Lol, thanks Min Führer.*Interesting. People just have different perspectives, that's all. I was having a somewhat similar conversation with my mentor yesterday. She was lamenting that her new team weren't as efficient as we had been, yaddah, yaddah. To her, she felt constantly misunderstood and I saw why. To my previous colleagues, she's high strung and overly competitive while my previous colleagues have always been more phlegmatic and uncomfortable about any discourse that involved gaining power or required work. Yet I still love these people. They do their jobs well, my ex mentor is just unable to inspire them. My ex mentor is just annoyed to no end. It was funny. I smirked at most of it and told her what my mother always told me: each and every one of us is of different make and while we don't have to change for them, it is better to stay diplomatic and to reserve judgment.
All is well. You're a good person for maturing greatly, Hos.
Thanks for the entertaining story, too
*Oh yes, this will stick.
This inability of many people to separate their personal world view judgements from any ideas they are exposed to applies in spades to the arts as well. I see this particularly in the way that they respond to the visual arts with a closed-minded ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. While the people who create great art certainly have to appeal to public taste in order to make a living, their greatest work is intended to give us deep insights that alter our world view. If we don’t approach these works open (critically of course) to that possibility then we totally miss their point. To judge these works from a like / dislike perspective is like choosing food only because of its colour. Some of the most potent art is inevitably unpleasant and dislike-able, because it shakes the foundations. It can only be appreciated fully if we can hold back the judgements until we have tried to grasp its meaning.
Lol. No. Too fancy.Lol, thanks Min Führer.*
Thanks for the entertaining story, too
*Oh yes, this will stick.
