Methods for discussing ideas on the forum

[JASKN]

[Mod note: Split topic]

(p.s. Even though like usual this post gets straight to the heart of the point without a million extra words and sentences it will be ignored just for that reason because I am beginning to believe that people on this site believe answers need to be ultra long and complicated so that they obscure the main point and they can then "discuss" the subjects indefinitely.)

This kind of comment isn't productive or helpful. If you don't like discussing ideas to completeness -- all implications and aspects, etc. -- this site probably isn't for you. Even deciding whether posts (in general? on this site? with Objectivists? With those who like ideas?) could be more concise would take -- you guessed it -- a discussion! Edited December 13, 2011 by JASKN

[EC]

I disagree for this reason: this "discussion" has been going on for 7 years now, and there are many others similar to it. There reaches a point were simple answer need to be given and others need to unpack it in their own minds using their own understanding of O'ist principles and the correct definitions. Or else you have these "discussions" ad infintum.

[EC]

This kind of comment isn't productive or helpful. If you don't like discussing ideas to completeness -- all implications and aspects, etc. -- this site probably isn't for you. Even deciding whether posts (in general? on this site? with Objectivists? With those who like ideas?) could be more concise would take -- you guessed it -- a discussion!

This is off topic but I've been thinking about this and realized there are two ways to attack these type of more abstract discussions.

First, there's the way most here seem to do which is by writing long posts discussing the minutia and fine points of everything, often slightly out of context or exploring points that are often irrelevant, and then trying to reach a conclusion based on this.

or

There is the second, which is to accept the basic principles and ideas as a given then use them to see the main point of a discussion, and state it knowing that the finer points are automatically included in that statement within the given context or that some are even irrelevant. I think this second approach is much more productive.

In other words it a way of looking at these more abstract discussions either piecemeal from the bottom up without knowing exactly where you are going and attempting to reach conclusion.

Or accepting the basic context of the philosophy, abstracting out the essential ideas, then getting a clearer picture in your head of what is important or not from the top down. Once you do this it's much easier to see what parts of a discussion are then relevant or not. And once you have these more general essential statements and ideas within a given context it is much easier to find and understand the finer points because you know the relevant ones must be implicitly included in the essential idea. This is the easier and generally more productive route that I like to take.

Edited December 13, 2011 by EC

[JASKN]

In other words it a way of looking at these more abstract discussions either piecemeal from the bottom up without knowing exactly where you are going and attempting to reach conclusion.

Or accepting the basic context of the philosophy, abstracting out the essential ideas, then getting a clearer picture in your head of what is important or not from the top down.

"Top down" is impossible epistemologically. How are you to reach the "top" -- abstract principles -- without the "bottom" -- fleshing out the details of reality? As Peikoff identified ages ago, the best way to discuss/acquire knowledge is actually both "top" and "bottom," over and over again. Or, the "Spiral of Knowledge." Induction, deduction, induction, etc.

If you're saying that forum participators should already have all of the abstract Objectivist principles fleshed out before they post, what would be the point of a forum like this? We basically get a constant influx of newbies.

[EC]

Yeah, I was just thinking of this. If you're not careful the higher abstractions would just actually be floating abstractions. See even though I can't directly prove it to you (ie, I can't physically show you that I thought just this a few minutes ago) I did anticipate what the objection to this approach would be by using the exact process I described before I reopened the forum two minutes ago.

My best guess is that this type of reasoning will only work if the higher abstractions are not many levels higher than the basics you need to prove your "educated guess". Then as needed you can fill in what lies in between. But it makes it much easier (minutes or hours instead of years) if you already know what you should be looking for in an answer, and in what context it should lie.

For example, let's say you're taking a introductory Calculus class. You need to use a certain theorem to do a calculation. If you are just given that theorem in your textbook you should already have the requisite knowledge and ability to apply it but the text will just list it and say something like "it can be shown that...blah, blah, blah" and you use it to do your Calculus.

Somebody else has already shown it's proof, you don't need the proof for it to work, but you go ahead and use it anyways and get the correct answers. Later, if you are just curious, want to be rigorous for your own sake, or are moving on to higher math you may go back and learn how to explicitly prove the way you got the correct answer. But note at no point do you have to; you already knew how to find the correct answer given your own prior knowledge and what was given to you.

The details in between are not important to know you have the right answer... you know it... you have it already based on already possessing the requisite knowledge and by using knowledge that has been given to you that you also know has been previously proven.

Filling in the gap, is optional. It is also easier to do now because you know what to look for, what not to look for, and what is irrelevant. You also now have a better grasp on the material before you attempt to go back and exactly prove it for yourself if you so choose. I think this parallel is very exact to discussing abstract ideas. It also helps you to understand them better yourself if you choose to comment on them.

Do I think people should have a certain appropriate context before they comment on more abstract subjects? Yes. Of course it would vary from person to person, but I think if a person is going to attack the validity of a certain Objectivist position they should first understand enough of the subject to understand why they might be and probably are wrong before they do so, or learn more of the basics first.

Edited December 14, 2011 by EC

[DonAthos]

I disagree for this reason: this "discussion" has been going on for 7 years now, and there are many others similar to it. There reaches a point were simple answer need to be given and others need to unpack it in their own minds using their own understanding of O'ist principles and the correct definitions. Or else you have these "discussions" ad infintum.

As "this 'discussion'" initially referred to a thread in which I had been participating, and perhaps as the driving force, I have reason to believe that some of your complaints were aimed at me personally.

Why is "discussion" in quotes? Do you believe that what's taking place in that thread, or in this thread, or on this board generally isn't actual discussion? What's the implication exactly?

As for it going on for seven years (is that a long time, btw, for people to be chewing on philosophical topics?), do you think that I have been talking about this for seven years? These topics don't simply exist as threads in a forum -- they're reflective of the thinking that people do, actual people in the context of their specific lives. And speaking for myself, I've found that it's often helpful to have other people to discuss ideas with in the course of my thinking. It's helped me at every level of education, and while I guess students could simply be given textbooks with no instructor, no classmates, and etc., to learn as they may, if I were running a school that's not how I'd go about it.

Where this board is concerned, I'd sought it out specifically to have people to discuss these sorts of ideas with, which shouldn't be too surprising since I think that this is a discussion board. If the point of this board is just to direct people to Rand's books, then I don't see the point in participating.

So yeah, "ad infinitum" about sums it up, because there will always be new people encountering these ideas for the first time, and if they're at all like me, they'll want to hash them out for themselves. And yes, there will continue to be discussions about matters you consider settled, because what is settled for you is not necessarily settled for others.

Do I think people should have a certain appropriate context before they comment on more abstract subjects? Yes. Of course it would vary from person to person, but I think if a person is going to attack the validity of a certain Objectivist position they should first understand enough of the subject to understand why they might be and probably are wrong before they do so, or learn more of the basics first.

I wonder at the phrase "attack the validity of a certain Objectivist position." Are we talking about something like "A is A"? Capitalism? Or are we still talking about how to interpret a sex scene in a novel? Does that count as "an Objectivist position"? If I conclude that the scene in question portrays rape, should I no longer call myself an Objectivist? And what's with "attack," anyways? Is there no room in the world for argumentative discussion which is not simultaneously some sort of antagonistic battle? Can it not take place in a friendly manner? I'd say, rather, that with respect to the relevant thread that I disagree with the conclusions which others have reached, and that I question the arguments they've used to arrive at those conclusions. But I consider those who engage me in discussion as my partners in trying to sort these matters out; that is, I'm grateful to them, and eager to either make my points successfully or see where I'm wrong. Am I looking at this cockeyed? Is everyone who disagrees with me simultaneously my enemy? Should I hate you, EC, because I think you're wrong? (And I do think you're wrong.)

And furthermore, you think that anyone who disagrees with an "Objectivist position" should feel that they "probably are wrong"? Really? How does that work?

[2046]

And what's with "attack," anyways? Is there no room in the world for argumentative discussion which is not simultaneously some sort of antagonistic battle?

Yes, seriously. I understand debates get heated from time to time, but when you have certain people in here that takes the very questioning of something to be some kind of immoral "attack," then there is no hope for any fruitful discussion whatsoever.

"Those who cannot carry a train of consequences in their heads; nor weigh exactly the preponderancy

of contrary proofs and testimonies may be easily misled to assent to positions that are not probable."

John Locke

[Eiuol]

Writing long posts is about fostering a discussion about establishing a broader understanding of some topic. Often, that will reveal information that you did not consider before and better brings to light other indirectly connected concepts. Of course, bringing up detail after detail as a counter-point is often a sign of empiricism, in the sense that somehow particulars are more important than essentials, so no understanding is achieved.

Yes, holding a concept implies particulars by stating it at all, but that doesn't mean greater understanding cannot be achieved. When talking ABOUT a concept, it is best to discuss what the concept contains and see what concepts need to be understood before there is a full understanding of the concept at hand. That's how reducing a concept works, and may indeed be laborious, but that's the only way to *understand* a topic. There is both top down (what concepts are needed to reach this conclusion) and bottom up (I have this information; does this lead to a concept?). At the same time, revisiting concepts can be valuable, as it requires you to apply principles you know.

The details in between are not important to know you have the right answer... you know it... you have it already based on already possessing the requisite knowledge and by using knowledge that has been given to you that you also know has been previously proven.

What do you mean by details? Which details? Non-essentials? I can't tell what you mean. Filling in the gap should actually help to validate a concept, and make sure what seems to be an essential actually is. Also, previously proven is irrelevant. If *you* can't prove something, there is no reason to believe that something.

[EC]

I will probably come back on a point by point basis to the various comments, but right now that's a bit hard too do when I have reached a point that to borrow a poker term equals "tilted". Poker borrowed that term from pinball, of course, because it means you've reached a state "where all your flippers aren't working right" which is analogous to letting your emotions cloud your rational faculty so it doesn't operate as efficiently.

That said, I think there is a huge difference between discussing and analyzing various positions and concepts objectively, and actually taking those positions and promoting them in the process of doing so. There is nothing wrong with, and you should want to, learn as much about positions that are different than your own, but you can't drop the context of where you actually are and actually promote positions that are contrary to that context in the process.

When positions that are contrary to Objectivist principles such as Anarcho-Capitalism are explicitly argued for in the context of an Objectivist forum it is exactly the newbies that are hurt the worst. They don't understand that such things have been previously found to not align with reality, why this is true, and where this information can be found. When you place proven concepts and principles such as Capitalism on the same intellectual footing as their opposites that don't align with reality or reason you are creating immense confusion and attempting to undermine reality. There is no problem with say, discussing the nature of communism or some form of anarchy as long you are not promoting them but discussing their essential features, results, contradictions, etc., and in no way implying in the process that they are on equal footing with Capitalism as a political system that completely complies with the nature of reality.

Edited December 15, 2011 by EC

[Eiuol]

When positions that are contrary to Objectivist principles such as Anarcho-Capitalism are explicitly argued for in the context of an Objectivist forum it is exactly the newbies that are hurt the worst. They don't understand that such things have been previously found to not align with reality, why this is true, and where this information can be found. When you place proven concepts and principles such as Capitalism on the same intellectual footing as their opposites that don't align with reality or reason you are creating immense confusion and attempting to undermine reality. There is no problem with say, discussing the nature of communism or some form of anarchy as long you are not promoting them but discussing their essential features, results, contradictions, etc., and in no way implying in the process that they are on equal footing with Capitalism as a political system that completely complies with the nature of reality.

What do you mean by intellectual footing, precisely? I don't know if you're including doing a "devil's advocate" sort of thing. The way you state that seems like you're suggesting Objectivism *is always right* and the goal of understanding is to align your thoughts with Objectivism. You can't call capitalism superior to something unless you know how the something works. You do need to put ideas on equal footing until you as an individual figure out where the contradictions are, if there are any.

I don't understand what you mean by "proven concepts" in this context. Proven to whom?

[freestyle]

Ugh, this thread is going to last forever.

(null)