![]() ![]() Degrees, credentials, authority, humor – these things do not confer immunity from this mandate. Detecting a person motivated by the latter (and even deceiving themselves in this regard) is a fairly easy task for an ethical skeptic. One is either seeking knowledge or hungering for loosh as a self-priority, and there is not much in the way of overlap between the two. Let them know this and depart the argument. If a person researches dishonestly, argues dishonestly, or seeks harm, these are all really manifestations of the same thing. This does not mean you need to be nice to everyone, but it does mandate discernment. Where one is corrupt in their skepticism, there also they will be corrupt in their heart. If you catch the scent of loosh on your opponent’s breath, block them and move on. ![]() Rather it is the signature spiritual rejection of loosh, both as a currency expended in lieu of faith, and as a passport indicating citizenship inside a vast dark Kingdom fueled by its addiction. ‘Turning the other cheek’ is not simply a beattitude mandating niceness to others. Is it truth, or is it you? Despite constituting a mild form thereof, one who seeks knowledge earnestly, falls into a category of innocence. You can detect them by the focus of their argument. For most other people however, observing mere discomfort through social embarrassment (epicaricacy) or harm to an opponent’s career will suffice. They draw power from imparting terror in and the specter of death upon their victims. Although an example in the extreme, a serial killer is a being who has fully succumbed to the addictive nature of loosh. In contrast, loosh is an addictive spiritual intoxicant derived from the instance wherein one enjoys causing the suffering of a higher order being, especially one of an unblemished, young, virginal, or innocent nature. If your opponent is sincerely in the business of probing truth, don’t seek a goal of destroying them by means of your accrued wisdom and skill in argument, simply because they may disagree. Resist the temptation to imbibe in the loosh of embarrassing or insulting an honest opponent Exploiting your opponent’s inability to articulate a point, in order to embarrass them, is not a valid method of improving knowledge nor alleviating suffering. A steel man argument is simply one in which you help you opponent articulate their position in a clearer manner, or at the very least, a manner which will bear utility in the putative upcoming discussion. One may employ a steel man tactic here, provided it is not conducted in an insulting manner. As with all warning flags of this nature, you are typically the last one to realize it. This is a large warning flag that there is not much going on inside you intellectually. Such is not really an argument at all, and finding out that this shallow depth of thought, constitutes the sole objective or cache the arguer has to offer, saves one from a complete waste of time.Īvoid inflammatory buzzwords (pseudoscience, anti-_, woo, believer, etc.) to describe your opponent’s position. The reason why this is necessary as a first step, is that this allows you to detect the situation where the arguer’s sole point is ‘You are an idiot’ (coercive religious argument camouflaged in extensive rhetoric). The first priority during an argument’s inception is to understand your opponent’s position. Articulate your opponent’s actual position, even if they are not skilled at doing so Thus, without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, The Ethical Skeptic’s Fabric of Sound Argument. The context for our argument herein regards subjects which are murky in comparison, and for various reasons (most often obfuscation or our not knowing what we do not know) have, other than from a simpleton’s perspective, eluded true consensus. These notions developed by Schopenhauer and Hegel constitute Pollyanna views of the readiness of most domains of inquiry to support and vet a claim to resolution in the first place. Nor do they pertain to the Hegelian notion of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis. You may notice that these twelve elements do not pertain to the intoxicating rush of a Schopenhauer-esque need to always be found right. These features of sound arguing serve to underpin the goal of ascertaining knowledge, or communicating the past and future critical path of research, if not knowledge itself. Therefore, bear in mind that this article outlines the traits of effective or dialectic arguing and not necessarily the structure of a sound argument. Several of my loyal Twitter followers even broached this very question. Given that we outlined the Art of Pseudo-Argument in our last article, I thought it would be appropriate to outlay those elements of discourse which I believe provide for the most effective form of arguing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |