Inheriting their worldview from consensus or comfort, never having to earn it through actual thought.
Whilst this statement has some merit, its problem is that you’re setting up a precursor to a straw-man argument. This is because who defines “challenging ideas”. This allows anyone to come up with a supposed challenging idea, then call anyone who doesn’t engage in it “an intellectual nepobaby”.
For example, should I engage in the “challenging idea” that the world is run by lizard people?
What about the “challenging idea” that throwing bricks in peoples faces will fix their teeth?
This is the same “good faith” argument that cultists, religious recruiters, libertarians, and racists use.
You don’t have to engage with morally abhorrent arguments out of loyalty to some platonic ideal of intellectualism. You’re allowed to tell people to fuck off.
You tell them to fuck off because you engaged with it and found it completely meritless/abhorrent, not because you’re above engaging with it. If they present new evidence for lizard people, you should skeptically examine the evidence and tell them to fuck off when it doesn’t hold up.
You don’t have to engage with them and waste your time debating them, but you absolutely should be open to challenge your own positions.
You say should, but that’s a judgment; judgments are subjective.
I’m stating my opinion on the matter…
I think you should engage with challenging ideas as the post says, I don’t think it’s an “ideal of intellectualism”, I just think it serves your own interests to be open to realize you’ve been mislead.
Fair.
I get what you’re saying, but you’re kind of setting up a strawman yourself here here. Not every idea deserves endless debate, sure, it’s about the habit of dismissing things as “stupid” without even considering them. Sure, lizard people and bricks fixing teeth are absurd. But those examples are extreme on purpose, and they don’t really address the core of people rejecting ideas out of hand just because they’re unfamiliar or uncomfortable. If an idea is actually bad, it will fall apart under scrutiny. But if the default response is just “that’s dumb,” we’re not thinking critically, we’re just avoiding the work, and worse, we are participating in a culture where it’s okay to do so. Which is exactly what leads to people getting (and abusing) terrible ideas.
Remedy to stupidity isn’t LESS critical thinking.
But those examples are extreme on purpose
Yes they were! And you’re right, we need to allow ourselves to be challenged, to consider ideas outside of our comfort zone, but we also need to able to reject ideas that are not being posited in good faith.
This is the joy of debate, to question statements and receive nuanced answers in reply.
How do you determine what’s not in good faith?
I would imagine this would tie to values, but do those become the unquestionable object, then?
That’s a great question and I’m not sure I have a definitive answer. For lack of better description, it would be the vibe I got from them:
- Do I feel like they’re being deliberately argumentative.
- Do I feel like they’re trying to twist my words in an unkind way.
- Are they looking for ways to find offence in what I’ve said.
How do you determine what’s not in good faith?
I personally always assume good faith. I can’t read people’s minds. On the Internet, I can’t even see facial expressions or hear how they’re saying it. It’s like that Key and Peele text message sketch.
Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that’s ever-present online?
When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.
I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.
I assume good faith unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. I try to adopt a more general version of WP:AGF in life.
Oh my gosh, thank you for responding this way 😭
I feel like on Lemmy it’s really difficult to ever post anything but total agreement without it immediately becoming an argument. Glad we found common ground!
You just don’t want to engage the challenging idea of defining “challenging ideas.”
For example, should I engage in the “challenging idea” that the world is run by lizard people?
As a counterpoint, you likely have. You’re aware of the position, aware of the proposed evidence, and determined the evidence falls short of proof, which means you’ve engaged with their thinking before rejecting it.
Confirmation bias is an incredibly stubborn human trait (and a near universal one at that). The particular issue this post is engaging with is called attitude polarization: two groups of people diverging more and more in their opinions despite being presented with the same evidence.
Why are humans like this? I think it’s a survival trait that people conform to the opinions of their in-group and are reluctant to let go of opinions that are most central to their world-view. They’ve already invested a lot in both their in-group and their world-view, so rejecting all that is more costly to them than rejecting the truth about some particular fact (that they may not even care about that much).
When you consider that beliefs and openly held opinions have different costs and different benefits depending on which group you belong to, it becomes a lot less obvious that abandoning a position is the right move.
It’s a good counterpoint. In my first example I definitely have thought about it previously.
In my second example it’s clearly stupid so I’m not going to engage with it. I haven’t thought about it previously (I have now !), but I don’t think that makes me an intellectual nepobaby.
But by your own admittance, you did think about it once the question was posed, so no, you’re not an intellectual nepobaby.
We have all had past experiences with how hard brick-adjacent substances affect teeth, so it’s not discarding it as a knee-jerk reaction. If you went to a dental college, and the professor made the claim before you knew better, I’d assume you’d be interested in finding out how he came to that conclusion, correct?
Yes, you assume correctly. I would be interested in finding out how they came to that conclusion!
I think in a different thread, the question of whether the other person was presenting something in good faith came up. I think my original statement was more geared towards dealing with those types of things. I don’t need to engage with everyone if they’re not willing to engage back.
Yeah, I agree that the attempt to engage is the most important aspect. What actually constitutes “engagement” is up to semantic debate.
I do think that new arguments should be evaluated, even if it’s presented in bad faith. I feel that the bad faith nature of the argument is a factor that counts poorly in my evaluation, but it’s good to have a solid understanding of the nuance in your stance, even when it comes to the ridiculous.
That’s like 95% of humanity
Yep. It’s especially cringe when people ignore centuries of philosophical discussion. Often smugly.
Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins’ books as proof that there is no god. Nothing like a Reddit atheist to make me embarrassed to not believe in god.
I’ve never witnessed an atheist making such an argument. Usually it’s the theists getting hung up on him because they are used to appealing to authority figures and project.
Lucky you?
I don’t think it’s luck.
It is. Buy a lotto ticket.
I unironically think the braindead atheism online greatly contributed to the rise of Christian nationalism we’ve been seeing in the past decade…
Isn’t it? I mean I haven’t read his stuff or otherwise cared that much but I thought that was the point.
I really don’t know.
In general I don’t quite understand the point of OP. How do you learn without learning?
Good on you for asking! Dawkins doesn’t prove there’s no God; he argues the idea isn’t necessary to explain reality. The burden of proof isn’t on him to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, it’s on those making the claim to provide testable evidence. That’s how critical thinking works.
https://youtu.be/Qf03U04rqGQ?t=301
As for “How do you learn without learning?” you don’t. But a lot of people confuse rote repetition (parroting Dawkins or the Bible) with understanding (grappling with the arguments themselves). One’s memorization; the other’s understanding.
Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins’ books as proof that there is no god
As was said earlier by someone else, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
But also not every idea is worth listening to. Sometimes they are a waste of time, and people who have argued in bad faith in the past don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I’ve found that I generally don’t look down on anyone pretty much ever. I don’t get it when someone lacks intellectual curiosity, but I never look down on them for it since it’s just not everyone’s cup of tea. However, when someone has disdain or actively rejects deeper inquiry, hoo boy, I can’t help but suddenly feel a pretty aggressive anger as if they not only choose to be stupid, but are trying to socially pressure everyone else to choose to be stupid. That’s just not acceptable.
I watched a video of a guy complaining about something similar and it ended with a really good phrase: don’t even bother engaging with non-apple rotators
What are non-apple rotators?
People who can’t rotate an apple in their head. In the context of the video - people who don’t interact with abstract arguments and think you’re talking about specific things or people instead
Aha, I gotcha. That’s a pretty apt analogy, I like it. Yeah, it’s pretty frustrating talking philosophy with someone and they’re all like “it’s not that deep, bro”, when in reality, it’s a hotly contested topic in academic philosophy. So I guess it’d be like “bro, it’s just a flat, red surface” when you’re trying to talk about how the stem is attached to the core in a way.
I interact with abstract arguments but can’t rotate an apple in my head because of aphantasia. I can easily handle the concept of rotating an apple though.
Funny enough, my ability to estimate how three dimensional objects fit into real space is really good despite not being able to visualize it.
This is crazy to me. I would have gone insane as a child if I couldn’t have imagined badass scenarios in my head when I was bored.
I drew a lot and made physical things!
Also read a lot, but had concepts and not images. Like a car in a story might remind me of a car I had interacted with even if I couldn’t picture it. Like a sports car feels fast and nimble even if I can’t picture the curves. Maybe it is rounded or has sharp angles on that model, but I can’t picture the actual curves or angles.
Intellectual nepobabies? I don’t know what that means! These words challenge me, and I want no part of that! Nooooope! I will not think about such things! I mean really! What even is “nepobabies”? Did you mean “muppet babies”? Because they stopped making that show a while ago…
Not necessarily. There are discussions in which I dont engage with certain ‘challenging ideas’ or rather walls of statements that need to be evaluated and put into context. If i know already that this discussion is not important enough for me and the points provided are not promising and novel (for me) enough, aka stupid on first glance, to later invest the time to revisit those ideas, research, evaluate and putting them into context, which no one can do for me, than i may not bother with those points to begin with. Afterall one cant be bothered with all stupid ideas about something that exists. Written forms of auch discussions are there more productive since one can do the research etc. in the moment. Allthough that to takes time.
In short no one has the time to truly interlectually and honestly engage all ‘challenging ideas’ there are. One must always make a certain preselections, with very shallow engagement.
One might have to smuggle in an ‘…all [challengin ideas …]’ to make this statement more accurate.
This ist very true. Maybe the proposed challenging Idea ist Not as Genius AS you think or you weren’t able to communicate it’s advantages good enough. Additionally If a Individuum regularly has 9/10 haywire ideas maybe the 1/10 genius Idea gets guilty of association (sry, but people are people).
Lol, the irony of this being so highly upvoted on Lemmy, of all places.
They’re called realists and they’re everything wrong with society. We need to kill the idea of objective reality and to push everyone to choose their subjective worldview based on their own wants and needs, not society’s.
Wow, that’s… not quite what I meant. The goal isn’t to reject objective reality, it’s to question how we define it and who gets to decide what counts as “real.” Pushing people to explore their own perspectives is one thing, but encouraging pure solipsism just replaces one dogma with another. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, yeah?
There is no compromising with an ideology that is inherently uncompromising in nature. It’s the paradox of tolerance. Realists will never make room for experiences that defy their idea of objective reality. If they did, they wouldn’t be realists. That’s why in order to create room for everyone’s experiences and freedom, we must destroy consensus reality. We need to kill objectivism in order to have a subjective multiverse with free exchange of ideas. Realists violate that social contract.
If objective reality doesn’t exist, then your definition of ‘subjective’ is just a consensus-based hallucination you inherited from your own comfort. How do you know your ‘multiverse’ isn’t just a realist’s cage you haven’t recognized yet? Your own argument destroys the premise upon which it rests. Also, what if my subjective experience includes what I would characterize as objective reality? You would be imposing your own definition on to me, again destroying your own premise.
Do you want to argue so that we can both learn from each other or do you want to argue so you can change My mind?
Neither. I just enjoy picking apart philosophical arguments.
Alright, well I’m happy to engage with that. I know it’s not a realist’s cage because I’m actively maintaining My subjective world and making choices about what to believe on a daily and weekly and yearly basis. I’m being an active agent in a way that realists don’t. They let society tell them what is objectively true. I don’t care about that, I’m asking Myself what is useful to believe.
How do you define what a realist cage is without being informed by objective reality?
@mindbleach@sh.itjust.works remind you of anyone?
…no? Help me out?
Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood you lol
Yeah, but, what if your thought produces something that the consensus disagrees with? Then you’re an evil person.
You also don’t have to believe everything “your thought produces”. It’s very common to have thoughts that are tied to old patterns of thinking, rather than new ones you are cultivating. For example, many of us have internalized racist or transphobic attitudes. Through life, learning and experience we have come to change our minds. However, we can’t help that sometimes we have a reactive thought based in our old conditioning. You don’t simply ignore such thoughts, you address them rationally. Over time, they diminish. This is part of growth.
It sounds like it implies the parents being smart which varies a lot. Like it varies if children listen to their parents.
Also it can vary on mood, energy and personal feelings a lot if someone is open to (for them) difficult concepts
