Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vague and lazy propositions as mentally destructive

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

There's something I've been groping to understand, but I'm not quite getting it. I'll often hear statements uttered, whether it's myself who's mentally whispering them or others who are vocalizing them, that I don't get when I start asking questions. 

 

I'll give some examples off the top of my head. I'm trying to find out what all of these have in common.

 

If someone says to you "you're the same" after you haven't seen each other in years. On it's own the statement means nothing. The same as what? In what respect? As measured since when? I'm guessing all of that is supposed to be implicit in the context of the whole situation, right? But then... I struggle to think of scenarios where there is an actual common ground to the implicit context. I feel like there's often a disconnect in understanding between others and myself because of this. It's not like I bring it up, because most people don't think about it, but I do think about it. Like now.

On it's own what is the statement: "you're the same". It's just a mouthful of air, right? It means nothing. What are we doing with the concepts then?

 

"I'm a failure" you secretly whisper to yourself. You see, these propositions can be destructive. I've thought about we can use this as an escape clause to thinking. It's like listening to sad music to suit a sad mood. Your feeding emotions because it suits, and your not checking if it's right or wrong. What does it mean to fail? A failure at what? What is success and what is the standard implicit in my understanding of these two? How can these saying float around in our mind, but float around with no real substance or understanding? What is that we're doing here? What's in common with this and the earlier proposition? Is it dropping context? Is it unformed concepts? Is it implicit knowledge?

 

I can think of more, but I'll save you from my ranting and rambling. Here are some more of the top off my head:

"Everyone's different?"— different how? who is everyone? every single person on earth? 

"It's good to give back, you know"— give back what? when? how? good, by what standard?

"deep down, everyone is good" — what's deep down? good at what? what is good?

 

I'm aware of my rationalistic tendencies and desire for perfection. So maybe that's what speaking out in me now. But I have a suspicion these are connected, and I want to understand what it is I need to learn to understand HOW they are connected.

 

Why?

Because if I'm able to become aware of the error that happens in crafting these propositions I'm able to save my mind from destruction. There's potentially an infinite gap between "I failed at a dance move", and "I'm a failure", but without thinking about it, you subject yourself to mental disaster.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first one, it means "Your personality, mannerisms and other such things characteristic of you as a person evidently are the same now as they were when I last saw you."

 

Listening to sad music isn't mutually exclusive with checking to see if one has a rational reason to be sad. As for being a failure, I don't know about you personally, but I'm pretty sure if you asked somebody who had this thought why they thought that they were a failure they'd give you a mile long list of their shortcomings, real or merely perceived. I think the problem tends to be here not well examining one's conception of success rather than deeming oneself to not meet the standards with no specific instances to found the claim on.

 

"Everyone's different?" No two people anywhere ever are exactly alike. Differences can be found in how we look, sound, smell, speak, things we like, things we don't like, what we know, on and on. It may go bad though if somebody starts to treat this like there are NO universal traits of humans, that everything is up for variation.

"It's good to give back, you know" This one's just altruism, "keeping stuff is bad. Get rid of it or you are bad. D:< " It has a thin veil of justice to it, like an implied reciprocity, but it fails to acknowledge that one already did give something in the first place to the person or people they got money/objects/services from or they wouldn't have gotten that stuff.

 

"deep down, everyone is good" Fear and delusion. Fear of judgment, since they're altruists and nobody can live by that standard and self-esteem is important. Delusion in not wanting to admit when somebody really has gone bad and done inexcusable things. Maybe that makes them feel safer, like they think they just have to appeal to somebody's "better nature" if they're ever in a jam with some bad people and surely that will solve things. Maybe they don't want to admit to being mistaken about somebody in a previous positive assessment of said person.

 

Not sure of much they have in common other than being brief, common things people think and say. The first one I don't see a problem. Three of them are likely problems rooted in altruism. One may be a problem of subjectivism if used too broadly. Perhaps they are all things that people may often say or think too hastily?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How can these saying float around in our mind, but float around with no real substance or understanding? What is that we're doing here?" 

 

Rand's concept of the "floating abstraction" seems to be what you are looking for?  Ideas which you accept as true and/or false without really being able to trace back the their origins in reality.

 

 

But I got to tell you, I picked up on this sentence   "....I'm able to save my mind from destruction."

 

You can't live your life thinking like this.  Floating ideas are not time bombs - we all have them to some degree.  It's the price of being able to think abstractly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm aware of my rationalist tendencies and desire for perfection". I see two valuable things right off.

As a leaning-towards rationalist, you shouldn't have ahead a too-difficult effort adjusting towards finding a grounding in fact and reality; it 'only' takes rigorous application - being conscious in seeing, listening -observing- for yourself and relating more facts back to your concepts. Put another way, you only have to add experience to what you know already in principle, and then check those concepts against the experience. It's an exciting as well as rewarding process, actually.

The much harder struggle is for anyone coming the other direction - from an empirical base, to abstractions(I speculate).

Second good thing: you are honestly aware of your tendency. That introspection is half the work done.

I'm sure in the course of all this, your "desire for perfection" will also adjust to reality and become less abstract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must differ. Not "stop" - but carry the thinking through. Consider all the possible causes and probable consequences, with the aim of putting the damaging thoughts and emotions away for good. Take a fresh perspective on everything you see and know.

As LoBagola has achieved - examine, articulate, and discuss.

There's nothing, really, that a thinker who is Objectivist should fear from thoughts in his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On it's own what is the statement: "you're the same". It's just a mouthful of air, right? It means nothing. What are we doing with the concepts then?

The expression invariably contains the implicit ". . . as the last time I saw you," without the specification of how.

 

"Everyone's different?"— different how? who is everyone? every single person on earth? 

"It's good to give back, you know"— give back what? when? how? good, by what standard?

"deep down, everyone is good" — what's deep down? good at what? what is good?

Everyone is different in some ways but not in others.  Which traits are unique, is not specified.

It's good to give back, sometimes; it's good to repay a cashier before leaving their store.  What makes it good is unspecified.

 

All of these are propositions about someone's character; the nature of their mind (including "giving back" since morality requires a human mind).  Specifically, each of these characterizations are phrased intrinsically; as if recognizing someone's virtue were no different from recognizing the color of their eyes.

 

Because if I'm able to become aware of the error that happens in crafting these propositions I'm able to save my mind from destruction. There's potentially an infinite gap between "I failed at a dance move", and "I'm a failure", but without thinking about it, you subject yourself to mental disaster.

This is not only an intrinsicist characterization; it also demonstrates the cognitive consequences you mentioned.

 

To criticize yourself can be beneficial, as emotional fuel for improvement.  But improvement is a type of change, and in order to change something you have to first understand it.

Now, if you fail at dancing and generalize "I'm a bad dancer" then the identification of what you dislike allows you to learn about it.  You can analyze that fact and gradually come to understand what causes it, which allows you to change it.  But if you fail at dancing and generalize "I'm bad" then you've already set yourself up for failure.  There is nothing productive to be learned about that.

. . . . .

 

So that sort of intrinsic reasoning is one of the effects of bad philosophy, on everyday people.  It isn't particularly unique or noteworthy, except when it enters into moral judgments; at which point it is dangerous.

The solution is simply to apply a better epistemology to such thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Listening to sad music isn't mutually exclusive with checking to see if one has a rational reason to be sad. 

I agree.  But it suits doesn’t it? It has some kind of appeal. Now, what I was saying is that in much the same way, certain phrases or propositions have a kind of musical appeal which can suit an emotion. And yet, they don’t mean anything when standing on their own, e.g. “I’m a failure”.  Because it suits it’s much more difficult initiating a process of actual thought. However, if you’re aware of the nature of these propositions and what they are, then it’s still difficult, but it won’t be as difficult, to begin that process of actual thought.
 
I wasn’t asking what people mean by them. People can mean different things; they can say things they don’t mean; they can mean things they don’t say; and they can even not know what they mean. They can say “you’re the same” even if your completely different. In the process of explaining an emotion they may err or just be lazy. But it’s just not a big deal in a social situation, as Harrison has pointed out. 
 

The expression invariably contains the implicit ". . . as the last time I saw you," without the specification of how.

Yes, so some thoughts are given meaning only by the context, and it’ll be implicit. E.g. “you’re wrong” is equivalent to “I think you’re wrong” (socially softeners make a difference, but for the sake of this post, they are the same).

What I’m really trying to do here, and obviously struggling at doing, is to understand this even more abstractly. E.g. for any given statement, I or anyone else makes, could I induct principles by which I can judge whether the data available in the situation (as specified implicitly) is enough to validate it? Or does could I just simply say "keep asking yourself questions about a proposition until you have all the answers, within YOUR context of knowledge?"

 

Everyone is different in some ways but not in others.  Which traits are unique, is not specified.

It's good to give back, sometimes; it's good to repay a cashier before leaving their store.  What makes it good is unspecified.

Right, and it’s easy for us to imitate this “thought process” mentally by rehashing these types of phrases when they suit some emotion. And especially if you have some deeply ingrained rationalistic beliefs (which intrinsicism gives rise to).

 

All of these are propositions about someone's character; the nature of their mind (including "giving back" since morality requires a human mind).  Specifically, each of these characterizations are phrased intrinsically; as if recognizing someone's virtue were no different from recognizing the color of their eyes.

 

Yes, that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...