How to diasarm/paralyze a rationalist's sandbox argument

[StrictlyLogical]

Hello:

 

 

I'm looking for tips on how best to render harmless a rationalist's rationalizing ramblings i.e. his philosophizing games and tantrums in the philosopher's sandbox, and how to point out how the ramblings are rationalism, floating abstractions, mysticism (reification of abstractions) and the like.

 

I know this is difficult because rationalism originates from an evasion or willful blindness to reality in favor of abstractions...  so pointing AT reality is often fruitless.

 

Rationalists I find also show an inordinate deference to authority.. "what they say" rather than to the actual process of cognition... I get far more "quotes" than argument from them.

 

Often rationalism also emerges from a strong desire (emotional self esteem issue?) to be right (as opposed to correct if you get my meaning) so in fact discussion is often fruitless.

 

I find rationalism to be based on the unstated premise that thoughts are superior to reality i.e. primacy of consciousness... so how to use reality to disprove rationalism?

 

 

I suppose if reality does not persuade the rationalist ... nothing can.

 

What's worse... suppose there is a rationalist who disavows himself of mysticism and Platonism,,, and in fact thinks he is an Objectivist...  how do we deal with THAT puppy?

 

 

Any tips for answering the silly ravings of the rationalist would be appreciated!

 

 

SL

 

[Plasmatic]

Its very simple, if you think that someone is being rationalistic, you simply point out the facts of reality that you think that person is evading or ignoring. Lots of "Objectivist" love to pull out the rationalist card but never seem to have an answer to the question, "what facts am I ignoring?" Edit: in other words, in my experience its far more common that some use the accusation of rationalism as a way to avoid making an argument or answering a counter argument.

Why do you think quoting a right idea originated by another is deference or lacking in argument as such?

Edited July 31, 2013 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

Probably better to point out weaknesses in arguments in terms of if B follows from A. As far as I've seen, rationalistic arguments are dependent upon a few premises, as well as ideas being based on a few. That's on top of the premises which are bound to be weakly founded at some point. A person can be rationalistic but still respond to facts of reality, so it's up to you to decide if discussion will be able to get anywhere. Rationalistic errors aren't always due to evasion, in cases where a person has no particularly well-developed way to reason well.
 

[StrictlyLogical]

Why do you think quoting a right idea originated by another is deference or lacking in argument as such?

 

Point taken.  It depends on the quote's content.. if it is persuasive reasoning or perhaps more eloquent than what the quoting person could have said then "substitution" not "deference" is operative.

 

If the motive is to "convince" and a person "subconsciously" assumes authority will work on the "convincee" this could indicate that the convincer thinks authority is itself "convincing" to be contrasted from reasons, argument, cognition.

Edited July 31, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Plasmatic]

Im thinking of the context of your previous question on "sandbox" arguments. In that context it is important to consider that a discussion/debate concerning what position/idea an author actually held would involve simply quoting what the author actually said. This is relevant to your post above on :

"What's worse... suppose there is a rationalist who disavows himself of mysticism and Platonism,,, and in fact thinks he is an Objectivist... how do we deal with THAT puppy?"

In cases of "pedigree", if you would, quoting becomes an essential part of the discussion. The actual words of the author are the facts being missed.

Something else to consider, I know I personally quote often because I absolutely hate typing, want to give credit where credit is due, and think others have a responsibility to due their own integrating, rather than being spoon fed a reworded interpretation.

Just the things that came to my mind when you brought this up in the other thread.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Plasmatic

[Spiral Architect]

A rationalist is someone who logically connects ideas without fact checking them against reality.  The rational lie.  The greatest temptation is to simply point out the contradictions, and they will exist, since a rationalist will ignore facts since he is simply connecting dots along an internal chain of thought.  

 

This however doesn’t work to well in the long run, especially if you get someone really married to the idea or who likes a good debate.  To paraphrase your sandbox idea, what you risk doing is “climbing into the fox hole” with him and debate the rationalist on his premise by doing this. 

 

The best thing is the best way to handle many different errors in knowledge, and that is simply go straight to the essential premise.  Find the root issue and start there.  For example, I use to debate a socialist friend on economics but I refused to climb into his fox hole and kept going back to the ethical issue, namely altruism and using force on others.  He doesn’t even try to debate the issue anymore, because he knows if he does try to point out some social or so-called economic point I’m simply going to go back to why he wants force people to obey him.  This usually leads to me comparing socialism and religion as ethical brothers from a different a priori father and that leads to an end game since he also as atheist. 

 

The only real thing to remember is that you have to be comfortable in the knowledge you have and a good grasp of the “hierarchy” of thoughts connecting your ideas so you can do this on one foot if needed.  If not, you may find yourself getting in the wrong fox hole again. 

 

Hope that helps. 

[StrictlyLogical]

A rationalist is someone who logically connects ideas without fact checking them against reality.  The rational lie.  The greatest temptation is to simply point out the contradictions, and they will exist, since a rationalist will ignore facts since he is simply connecting dots along an internal chain of thought.  

 

This however doesn’t work to well in the long run, especially if you get someone really married to the idea or who likes a good debate.  To paraphrase your sandbox idea, what you risk doing is “climbing into the fox hole” with him and debate the rationalist on his premise by doing this. 

 

The best thing is the best way to handle many different errors in knowledge, and that is simply go straight to the essential premise.  Find the root issue and start there.  For example, I use to debate a socialist friend on economics but I refused to climb into his fox hole and kept going back to the ethical issue, namely altruism and using force on others.  He doesn’t even try to debate the issue anymore, because he knows if he does try to point out some social or so-called economic point I’m simply going to go back to why he wants force people to obey him.  This usually leads to me comparing socialism and religion as ethical brothers from a different a priori father and that leads to an end game since he also as atheist. 

 

The only real thing to remember is that you have to be comfortable in the knowledge you have and a good grasp of the “hierarchy” of thoughts connecting your ideas so you can do this on one foot if needed.  If not, you may find yourself getting in the wrong fox hole again. 

 

Hope that helps. 

 

 

This is very good advice.  Thank you.

 

"Taking the bait" is tough to avoid as you will know since rationalists and objectivists can actually talk PAST one another.  Being genuinely interested in persuading the rationalist I am tempted to "speak their language" to help the process along... and this is of course disastrous... I end up arguing over floating abstractions and definitions ... and well it ends up a waste of time.

 

"Fox hole" is a good visualisation to keep in mind.  Once again thank you!