| | Wow, Phil, you had quite a bit of steam emission in that post. You did not even re-check it for typos. This kind of post should make your critics who love passionate displays very happy. At least if it were not sometimes directed at them.
Dean Michael Gores,
In Post 26 you asked me a series of questions which might be very general or they might be intended to apply to some particular discourse of this tread. If they are meant to apply to this tread, then I am not certain enough what the flaw is, what the evasion was, and who destroyed what values. If, perchance, you are proposing that Phil Coates has a flaw in his argument, that this has been pointed out, then he evaded it, and he destroyed Objectivist values, then I would be in disagreement with you.
However, these questions are interesting in the general case. First, I encounter flawed arguments with great frequency, whether I am discussing science, technology, philosophy, ethics, or politics with others, especially the latter three. It seems we are surrounded by huge numbers of people who are simply wrong-headed. Especially, in philosophy, ethics, and politics, we encounter evasion constantly. We encounter efforts to destroy many of our values constantly as well. Sometimes I actually do get angry. It rarely does any good in terms of eliciting a shift on the part of the opposing party to a more rational idea. But, many of those who oppose rational ideas do place a great deal more weight on people's feelings than on any idea that they claim has a rational basis. Occasionally, then it might be appropriate to remind such a person that you have strong feelings for your rational values. However, before releasing one's anger, it is often good to check the total context of the relationship one has with that person.
In the broad context, even most of the people who threaten us politically are productive members of our society and as such offer us some values, even as they try to increase our taxes or some other dastardly deed. They may generally share more of our values than would the common man of Medieval Europe and maybe we should remember that. Or, we may work with them and generally be good partners in our productive work, even though we do not agree politically. It is amazing how many scientists reject the notion that we can know reality when discussing philosophy and yet they act fully as though they can when they are solving scientific problems. There is quite an evasion there! Then, how do you respond when your daughters come home from high school or college and spout the latest nonsense their teachers have taught them there. Do you stop treating them with love? Well, not me. I simply try to construct a superior argument and figure that if anything I can do will make a difference, that will be it. What else can you do? Alright, yes, you can become a hermit and go live in miserable isolation. You can take yourself straight back to the cave.
We live in a world in which many people, even most people, have very wrongheaded ideas that they cannot support without extensive and habitual evasion. And yet, those same people are the difference between you and I being born in a cave and our living most of our lives in a cave. Most of those people live productive lives and provide us with valuable goods and services. Context is everything here. Measure and control your anger to maximize your ability to form the best possible rational argument and to maximize the likelihood that they might actually listen to it and think about it. If they won't, there is nothing you can do about it. When that happens, spend your time and effort elsewhere.
I understand the frustration of pointing out a serious flaw in someone's argument and watching them evade the knowledge of that flaw. It happens with terrible frequency. It even happens sometimes when I am discussing ideas with Objectivists, who share many more of my ideas and values than most people do. But the important context here is to remember that your fellow Objectivists generally stand head and shoulders over most people in sharing values with you. It is not a very realistic policy to alienate the very few people who are your allies over every point of difference. But do make a good argument and if they are not willing to learn from you now, maybe they will be later. Patience is a virtue not too much appreciated among Objectivists, but given the magnitude of our persuasion task, we had better pay it some attention.
|
|
