So. We, here, at AI, are trusting our senses.
What do we immediately conclude?
We Don't Live in the Matrix
The world appears to be real. Ergo, it is.
We Do Have Free Will
We appear to make choices. Ergo, we do.
Taxation is Wrong
No one likes being taxed. Ergo, it is wrong. We don't even know why it's wrong yet, but it is. You've probably run across a few arguments against it yourself. But the real reason we know it's wrong is because we sense that it is.
Schools are Wrong
Everyone hates school. I know why schools are wrong. It's because they're brainwashing prisons.
Compulsive Charity or Saving is Wrong
If people don't want to give, then they need to trust that. If people don't want to save for retirement, they need to trust that.
In fact, we can just categorically say that any interference with people's drives is wrong. This includes things as mild as verbal pressure or rhetoric.
This leads inevitably into...
Children are Horribly, Systematically Abused
What is 'raising' a child but repeatedly telling it that it's feeling the wrong thing?
So what do you do? What if someone's drinking their savings and family into oblivion? What if your child really is a hellion?
Well, here's the thing. If you feel like you need to interfere, you need to trust that. Though Axiom One taketh away, it also giveth.
But, interfering is wrong. What to do?
The thing is, interfering with you is also wrong. So, if your child is a hellion, they are interfering with your instincts. Sit them down, and tell them that what they're doing is wrong. Now, if you've used this before and they're aware of Axiom One, they'll tell you that they really want to break your lamps, or whatever.
Here's where the finesse comes in.
Your senses will immediately tell you they're lying. They are. Their senses aren't telling them anything contrary to yours. They're probably bored by the moralistic lecture because they already know.
So how do you deal with a willful child? I don't mean stubborn, I mean willfully testing limits. Well, with finesse. Try to respect them as much as you can, but at the end of the day just make sure your lamps stay in one piece.
If you're angry, it's because they've hurt you. You're allowed to stop people from hurting you. If they weren't deliberately hurting you, they would probably help you come to a compromise where you can both be happy.
It's as important to keep your child from exhausting your patience as it is to avoid excessive displays of anger. Aside, watch out for sneak-attack anger.
The thing is, when you're trying to get someone to stop hurting you, don't do it by hurting them.
With the drinker, it's the family's responsibility. They are the ones being hurt. As a bystander, you can certainly mention that you have something to say to them, but you can't, morally, just start lecturing them, because pressuring someone might make them violate Axiom One.
Because pressure is wrong, (I will explain in more detail later, it has to do with intellectual property rights) they have to come to you. They have to ask about your opinion. Certainly, it's reasonable to assume that they aren't aware you have one. But if they know and don't ask, there's no point in forcing it.
This obviously means...
The Evolution vs Creation Debate is Horribly Degenerate
Both sides are trying to force the other side to violate their senses. This of course means that the apparent 'logical debate' with 'reasons' and 'evidence' has nothing to do with what's actually going on.
If it were really about changing minds, each would try to foment curiosity in the other side.
Now, this is a game I can play all day. I certainly could, but I'm going to stop out of respect for readers who may disagree. I think this is enough for illustration.
If you do agree with me, why don't you add some more for me?
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The world appears to be flat. Ergo, it is.
Do you see the fallacy?
I did find your first post about the axiom interesting; I just don't think that axiomatic reasoning has any real worth outside of mathematics or formal logic.
The world does not appear to be flat to me. The curvature is plainly visible from any high point.
Alternatively, in the ways in which it appears flat, it might as well be.
The fallacy clearly indicates that appearances aren't always definitive; beacuse people see things differently, the only way out of this is a recourse to science. Your post resolves itself to a truism, which I personally find unsatisfying, but that is my bias.
"Alternatively, in the ways in which it appears flat, it might as well be."
alternatively: In some places the earth is flat, but overall it is spherical.
This has nothing to do with how it "appears", It is substantiated by both cartography and physics, do you need evidence?
The earth appears flat because it is. Except at the shallowest level, this kind of relationship is basically always true, unless a human is intentionally obfuscating it.
Why do you trust the appearance of cartography but not the appearance of the territory?
"Why do you trust the appearance of cartography but not the appearance of the territory? "
I do not trust the appearance of cartography, because there is nothing that appears. You mean particular maps etc?
"The earth appears flat because it is."
False. The Earth is spherical, this is the only explanation that makes sense of the data.
"Except at the shallowest level, this kind of relationship is basically always true, unless a human is intentionally obfuscating it."
I am not sure what you mean "shallowest level" and I am not sure what you mean by "this basic relationship is always true." What relationship?
"unless a human is intentionally obfuscating it."
This is either an ad-hominem fallacy or a poisoning the well fallacy. Can't I think it is not true simply because I have reason to do so, or does this fall into your blindspot of the difference between truth and honesty again? If you have some criticisms of what I amsaying can you try to be a little more direct about why what I am saying is false or stemming from misunderstanding.
Sorry, just some questions, can I somehow get a feed from your comments section. I keep forgetting that I have actually left messages on your site, and then remembering way later.
I like reading your blog whether or not it seems that I often disagree with what you say.
I have you on an rss feed for the blog, but not the comments.
I don't know how to add an RSS for the comments. You can subscribe to them when you comment, though. I don't mind if you leave a comment just to subscribe. There's an email associated with your g+ account, isn't there?
Post a Comment