Win a copy of Permaculture Playing Cards this week in the Permaculture forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
permaculture forums growies critters building homesteading energy monies kitchen purity ungarbage community wilderness fiber arts art permaculture artisans regional education skip experiences global resources the cider press projects digital market permies.com private forums all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
master stewards:
  • James Freyr
  • Nicole Alderman
  • Anne Miller
  • r ranson
  • Mike Jay Haasl
  • Dave Burton
  • Pearl Sutton
stewards:
  • paul wheaton
  • Joylynn Hardesty
  • Joseph Lofthouse
garden masters:
  • Steve Thorn
gardeners:
  • Dan Boone
  • Carla Burke
  • Kate Downham

"let's not argue" + "I am right" = "shut up"

 
steward
Posts: 28890
Location: missoula, montana (zone 4)
hugelkultur trees chicken wofati bee woodworking
  • Likes 4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Emerson White wrote:
If you are saying 'lets not argue' and still saying 'I am right' those together combine to make 'Shut up'.



I have to admit that I often don't agree with Emerson.  And this, while bordering on inappropriate for this forum ....  I think is rather profound.  I had not considered this before.  I have learned an important thing today. 


 
                                              
Posts: 500
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well this is out of the thread it originated from and was directed at me at the time. so id like to re address this since its out of the thread, and shouldnt bother anyone in the drivel section.

  when i said lets not argue, if I worded it that way i forget exactly, i meant lets not argue. I certainly didnt mean lets not debate. there was a lot of hostility it seemed. theres a difference between arguing and debating. If you notice I was working at explaining myself. Others were declaring me wrong, then not backing it up further explaining their stance. not they they have to, but there was no need for hostility.

  In other contexts where it fits, I agree with the sentiment fully. It didnt fit this particular context though.
 
paul wheaton
steward
Posts: 28890
Location: missoula, montana (zone 4)
hugelkultur trees chicken wofati bee woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This is kinda like the idea that the word "but" sorta negates everything you just said.  Once you hear that connection, you see that there is a lot of truth to it. 

If a person stresses their point and then expresses that they wish to immediately terminate the discussion, it is an attempt to euphamize "I'm right and now you need to shut up so that I've had the last word on the subject."

On the other hand, if the person does not stress their point, but goes directly to "let's not argue" - that seems to say "let's not argue" and nothing more.  It seems more wholesome. 

I'm not concerned about how it applies to the previous discussion.  I'm interested in how I feel like I've grown a little today.  I like this observation.

 
master pollinator
Posts: 11467
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
773
cat forest garden fish trees chicken fiber arts wood heat greening the desert
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"Hostility" may be very subjective.  Talking about a person may be seen as hostile whereas talking about an idea may not be.

 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"that is your opinion" is another such tactic. It dismisses fact and logically sound argument as mere opinion, while implying that the refuted position is identical in truth value as that which has been shown to be true. Sadly these sorts of dismissive tactics are far too common.
 
Tyler Ludens
master pollinator
Posts: 11467
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
773
cat forest garden fish trees chicken fiber arts wood heat greening the desert
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"That which has been shown to be true" seems kind of subjective to me.  Unless we're talking about, say, the law of gravity. 
 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Then I'd recommend The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival, or any other basic intro to logic text. Truth is not subjective, in fact that is a contradiction. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Reality is never and can never be subjective, as it is what pertains, or put another way, that which is. Reality is by definition singular, though sadly some  use the word to refer to mere perception which is VERY different from reality.

Very little in life is actually subjective, and  those are very limited areas all dealing with personal preferences. Favorite ice cream, favorite color, prefered weather, etc. these are the areas which are subjective. All else is objective, even where we do not yet know the answer (say like the volume of the universe).
 
Tyler Ludens
master pollinator
Posts: 11467
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
773
cat forest garden fish trees chicken fiber arts wood heat greening the desert
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Human perception of reality is subjective, in my opinion.  Humans are incapable of objective observation of the world, as our senses are quite limited, in my opinion.

 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well it is certainly true that many folks do view the world subjectively. As for this being universal, well the existence of any technology proves that we are not merely capable, but can excel at objective observation of reality. Without that ability, it would not be possible to disagree with the existence of objectivity via this medium..
 
Posts: 1206
Location: Alaska
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

paul wheaton wrote:
I have to admit that I often don't agree with Emerson.  

I think that was a generous assessment

I suspect that it's a matter of emphasis. I think that 'let's not argue' can be used to convey the message that'I'm alright with you thinking what you think if you're alright with me thinking what I think' and there is probably infinite grey zone in between. I suspect that most people don't realize that they then have to give up ground in their argument in order to find commonly accepted premises to make some larger point.

I wish more people took logic courses, I'm working on putting together a curriculum for the middleschools here in anchorage.
 
Tyler Ludens
master pollinator
Posts: 11467
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
773
cat forest garden fish trees chicken fiber arts wood heat greening the desert
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Storm V Spooner wrote:
Well it is certainly true that many folks do view the world subjectively.



Every human being views the world subjectively, in my opinion.  

 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Emerson, if you are interested, the aforementioned book, The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy, is in my experience as one who has taught logic, the best introduction to basic logic, as well as civility and intellectual discussion in general. Ms McElroy has that wonderful gift for understanding the details of a topic, while being able to explain them in terms which are easily accessible to any lay person.
 
Tyler Ludens
master pollinator
Posts: 11467
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
773
cat forest garden fish trees chicken fiber arts wood heat greening the desert
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
But what about people who do not approach the world from a logical perspective, such as myself?  I approach the world from an aesthetic perspective.  Do I simply not count in the scheme of things? 

 
Emerson White
Posts: 1206
Location: Alaska
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'll take a look, but I've taken logic, and tutored it for years.
 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ludi, there is no exclusion of aesthetic points of view, but surely you agree that "feeling" X to be true never changes reality to make it true. I may feel that a square is a circle, but that aesthetic appreciation of the square form will never make it a circle..

Just as I would never try to use logic to determine who I will love (at least not as the final arbiter) I would never deny logic its proper role in the acquisition of knowledge. In our  current culture logic is dismissed because it is not subjective, because it is not mere opinion, and is not mere emotion. This insults us all while being self-defeating.

So we recognize that appreciation of a painting is subjective, but the composition of the materials used to make the painting is squarely in the realm of reason. Accepting reality does not negate emotion, or diminish the real role of subjectivity.
 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ludi, fwiw I would argue that you do in fact approach the world logically.. After all you don't take the prettiest path every day under the assumption that beauty will take you to work, or to the grocery store.. You may take the prettier of the possible paths, but first and foremost is the goal determining what will get you there.. (same goes for getting out of bed, going to the kitchen, cooking, eating, and virtually every activity in which you and the rest of us engage.. )
 
Tyler Ludens
master pollinator
Posts: 11467
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
773
cat forest garden fish trees chicken fiber arts wood heat greening the desert
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Storm V Spooner wrote:
Ludi, there is no exclusion of aesthetic points of view, but surely you agree that "feeling" X to be true never changes reality to make it true.



I personally believe humans can only have a subjective view of reality, even through such an "objective" method as science.
 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Were that true, then we could have none of the technology we are using to discuss this..
 
                                              
Posts: 500
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

HL Tyler aka Ludi wrote:
I personally believe humans can only have a subjective view of reality, even through such an "objective" method as science.



Sadly i have to agree. Although, not on 100 percent of issues necessarily.
 
                                              
Posts: 500
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Storm V Spooner wrote:
Were that true, then we could have none of the technology we are using to discuss this..


yes your totally right. Yet it is true ive seen examples where it was clear the prevailing science of an era, even our own turned out not to be as complete as we thought. to us it seemed totally true, but there was a bigger picture, or older ideas in the way.
 
Emerson White
Posts: 1206
Location: Alaska
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If you approach life from an aesthetic or intuitional or experiential direction communication can point things out to other people, but if they do not agree with you there isn't much you can do about it. That's a recipe for frustration in my book. I suspect that you do agree to much of logic, and that what would be the least frustrating and most enjoyable way to live your life would be to come at things with an aesthetic approach, but be able to check them against logic when it comes time to communicate them.

As to paradigm shifts, I think that reading the work of Thomas Kuhn (who came up with the concept) would temper your enthusiasm for the reach of such shifts Silverseeds.
 
                                              
Posts: 500
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Emerson White wrote:
As to paradigm shifts, I think that reading the work of Thomas Kuhn (who came up with the concept) would temper your enthusiasm for the reach of such shifts Silverseeds.




  i will have to look it up. But i doubt it would. We are facing many very real, and challenging issues in my eyes. We must face them head one or we may be in big trouble at some point. Ive got kids. Im relatively young. I dont want to see the world fall down around people. Not saying that will happen, but where we are in many areas, its possible if we do not adapt.
 
                              
Posts: 144
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Kuhn's work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, to which Emerson refers, is indeed a must read. It is one of those very rare books which can be found in almost all top 100 must read books..

As for the ever increasing accuracy with which we describe reality, well.. is this really a problem? Employing objective observation and critical thought, as well as recognizing that objective reality exists and can be described, does not require omniscience or any pretense of such (though perhaps ironically that presumption is  almost always found in the subjectivity camp). Instead it recognizes that we can perceive reality and to the extent to which we are successful, proved in many ways including the functioning of technology as in my previous examples, we can describe it. As long as we are careful, objective, and reasonable (literally able to use reason) our progress is in one direction: ever towards more accuracy. When we abandon or deny these, well we get Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and other thankfully less harmful ills.. such as the roof caving in on my head were I to ignore reason and reality in building my home..
 
                                              
Posts: 500
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
very interesting.
 
paul wheaton
steward
Posts: 28890
Location: missoula, montana (zone 4)
hugelkultur trees chicken wofati bee woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Storm V Spooner wrote:
"that is your opinion" is another such tactic. It dismisses fact and logically sound argument as mere opinion, while implying that the refuted position is identical in truth value as that which has been shown to be true. Sadly these sorts of dismissive tactics are far too common.



In my experience, what is too common is that opinion is presented as fact, thus requiring the awkwardness of somebody else to add the qualifier. 

Too often I see people presenting fact that the world is flat, which makes it awkward to present my ideas on how the world-is-spherical without appearing to be confrontational. 

I need this community to be open. 

 
master pollinator
Posts: 8827
Location: Victoria British Columbia-Canada
734
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

paul wheaton wrote:



I have to admit that I often don't agree with Emerson. 




Look at the difference the order of these words makes. If Paul had said - I don't often agree... instead of I often don't agree... the meaning would have changed.

I wonder how many disputes have started over something as minor as this sort of word mix up, typing errors and people thinking that a statement is directed at them when in fact it's a general statement not concerned with the posts that immediately preceed it.

Since Paul hasn't chastised me lately, I naturally assume that we agree point for point except when he's wrong of course.
 
steward
Posts: 1748
Location: Western Kentucky-Climate Unpredictable Zone 6b
104
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The corporate world has caught on to these conflicts in communication with Assertiveness Training , making your point and standing your ground without stepping on the rights of others. I am a Nurse and work with elderly folks , many who suffer from dementia. I am a huge proponent of Validation Therapy.
This is a system of communicating with dementia sufferers devised by Social Worker Naomi Feil - hero and genius to me. The main component of this system is to never invalidate what another is saying or feeling , we can simply guide the conversations into more neutral or therapeutic terrain. Logic is wonderful , but sometimes what seems irrational is an internal process seeking emotional/spiritual completion. Deep down we know the truth as best as we can , we are trying to get there. Ericksons theories regarding our motivations at different stages of life come into play . As young adults we are trying to find identity , middle age we are trying be productive , as we age we want our lives to have meant something , and as we die we want to die in peace. These are internal forces that overcome logic and reason. Subjectivity is driven more by motivation than perception. So , I understand what you all are saying - lets not argue -I am right on this! Just kidding.
 
Bring out your dead! Or a tiny ad:
Heat your home with the twigs that naturally fall of the trees in your yard
http://woodheat.net
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!