If a man is better able than we are to promote virtue ever so little, we must be content with the result. A teacher of this sort I believe myself to be, and above all other men to have the knowledge which makes a man noble and good; and I give my pupils their money’s-worth.So the Sophists were really the first Life Coaches; though their decided emphasis on virtue was directed toward making the individual a better citizen, a critical organ in a harmoniously healthy body politic. They didn’t merely help people achieve their personal and professional goals.
[1] I’m well aware that political rants also utilize appeals to pathos and ethos. You might even argue that political rants contain more appeals to pathos than either logos or ethos. I’m sure you will!
Insightful post, Steven. If the 20 most annoying things people do were removed from Facebook, would there be anything left of it?
ReplyDeleteSomewhat tangential to the subject of your post, I don't think research confirming our intuitions about why people use Facebook is a waste of time. For one, it provides a baseline for comparison to other forms of expression. Furthermore, it could suggest some general 'law' of human behaviour. For example, perhaps this research suggests that narcissistic fulfillment from expression on any medium is inversely proportional to the time it takes to express oneself in that medium.
" If the 20 most annoying things people do were removed from Facebook, would there be anything left of it?"
DeleteGood point!
"I don't think research confirming our intuitions about why people use Facebook is a waste of time."
I agree. And even though marketers spend a lot of time researching it, it seems social psychologists are doing the same, and coming up with some interesting results.
I think perhaps you underestimate the overwhelming extent to which our argumentative interactions are driven by that sense of competition you mention. (I tend to associate the search for truth with a desire for understanding – natural curiosity – which draws on input from others but is essentially private.)
ReplyDeleteThe realm of discussion and debate – even before it was debased by social media – was always more about status and so on than truth. RT's tag line is nice but just a little bit over-optimistic.
A trivial example. I was tempted to point out that the Latin for argumentative is 'argumentativus' – 'sapiens' and '(o)economicus' are real Latin adjectives so why not use the proper form?
But, of course, this would be a mere competitive ploy on my part, and a very stupid one, leaving me vulnerable to being characterized as a humorless pedant.
It's all a bit like a game of chess, isn't it?
>I tend to associate the search for truth with a desire for understanding – natural curiosity – which draws on input from others but is essentially private.<
DeletePerhaps, but from my perspective, one of the major reasons I got into arguing with people about philosophy on the Internet was to have my beliefs challenged.
There's no experiment I can conduct to test my metaphysical beliefs. The only test is to engage in dialogue with others to see if they can point out any flaw in my argument.
Reading is much less satisfying to me, as I often think I spot a flaw in the argument proposed in the text, and then have no opportunity to put the challenge to the author and so learn if the flaw is real or not.
DM
DeleteFair point, I suppose. I personally prefer to read (and interact with if possible) people who know important things I don't know or fully understand (in science and mathematics especially). I think it's ultimately new knowledge that tests our worldviews rather than general argumentation. I see philosophical argument (in the sense of logical thought) as being necessary but subsidiary to knowledge – a by-product of learning, a kind of putting-new-knowledge-into-place.
Also, let me make it clear that I see science as an essentially social process, but driven by the natural curiosity of individuals (as well as by practical necessities and problems).
One area where perspective matters more than knowledge in a narrow sense is ethics. But I would not be more inclined to seek ethical (or prudential) advice from someone trained in philosophy than from any other reasonably intelligent person.
I think you're right when you're talking about empirical knowledge. Where there are facts to learn and experiments to test, then philosophy is not terribly useful.
DeleteFor some subjects, such as the ethics you mention, philosophical argument is the only feasible means of testing beliefs.
>But I would not be more inclined to seek ethical (or prudential) advice from someone trained in philosophy than from any other reasonably intelligent person.<
Same here. But often only those with an interest in philosophy are happy to get into discussions of the type I seek.
Yes but scientific (and mathematical) knowledge not only impinges on but to a large extent drives the philosophy of science (and the philosophy of mathematics).
Delete(By the way, I meant, of course, to refer to RS's tag line in my original comment.)
"The realm of discussion and debate – even before it was debased by social media – was always more about status and so on than truth. RT's tag line is nice but just a little bit over-optimistic."
DeleteI agree with the first part of that. As for the tag line, it's better to aim high!
Perhap I'm falling for some argumenticus trap but that meme is incorrectly used.
ReplyDeleteThe "schrite fact" is suppose to be the countering of an Idiom or platitude after being interpreted literally.
Example: "All you need is love?" "False, you need oxygen, water and nutrition"
Anyway, carry on.
Should people be searching for Truth, or for what's best? The search for Truth leads people astray.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to say "both," but I think both Truth and what's best are fuzzy concepts. Do we mean Truth of Fact? Best for you or me? Or humanity? Or best for my German shepherd? How do we decide?
DeleteTruth is the best of All. =
DeleteI propose Homo disserens. Because we mostly speak, with or without clear arguments, to someone or ourselves.
ReplyDeleteLike.
ReplyDelete