Suicide by Mod
The most recent poster banned for behaviour they knew would get them banned marks a little trend Ive noticed on this forum. Im interested in what exactly is going on with that, as ive not noticed it on other forums (the trend).
New posters and older posters alike get fed up and decide to foolishly dare the mods to enforce the guidelines.
What are people thoughts on why they do that? They could just leave, but some anger or frustration compelled them to...I dont know, some sort of strange suicide by mod.
There seems to be something more going on than tension with the mods or opposing viewpoints. Something builds up until they sorta snap, is it the “left wing” bias discussed in that other threads, some sort of problem they have with the forum culture?
I hesitate to suggest its a general trait of philosophical or political forums, as ive frequented many and not noticed a similar trend.
So a sign of the times then? Are we just so divided that certain people crack from the stress of knowing people out there disagree with them so so much?
Is it the nature of discourse, that some people just arent equipped for?
I just cant decide.
As a broader consideration, this seems to be under the purview of tribalism which is a well established human trait/flaw. If this is a sign of the times, then are we experiencing a flare up of tribalism, a tribalism growth spurt of some kind? (Or as a pleasant surprise, its death throes?)
New posters and older posters alike get fed up and decide to foolishly dare the mods to enforce the guidelines.
What are people thoughts on why they do that? They could just leave, but some anger or frustration compelled them to...I dont know, some sort of strange suicide by mod.
There seems to be something more going on than tension with the mods or opposing viewpoints. Something builds up until they sorta snap, is it the “left wing” bias discussed in that other threads, some sort of problem they have with the forum culture?
I hesitate to suggest its a general trait of philosophical or political forums, as ive frequented many and not noticed a similar trend.
So a sign of the times then? Are we just so divided that certain people crack from the stress of knowing people out there disagree with them so so much?
Is it the nature of discourse, that some people just arent equipped for?
I just cant decide.
As a broader consideration, this seems to be under the purview of tribalism which is a well established human trait/flaw. If this is a sign of the times, then are we experiencing a flare up of tribalism, a tribalism growth spurt of some kind? (Or as a pleasant surprise, its death throes?)
Comments (120)
More specifically, I think there is a distinction to be made between wanting people to agree with you and needing people to agree with you. Everyone has the former. Everyone likes when people agree with them. However some go an extra step and decide that there is something to lose when people disagree. In other words, become entitled to others on the forum reacting to them in a specific way. Become reliant on it like food and water. It’s those people that commit suicide by mod. Their expectations get shattered and so they lash out.
It’s a similar trend to the age old phenomenon of “rage quitting” be it in a video game or a real game. When something doesn’t go your way and you throw a temper tantrum.
I say don’t become reliant on others reacting to you in any specific way whatsoever.
Who taught you that tribalism is a human flaw?
Well said. I am so often struck by the ratio of philosophical and psychological in posts.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with playing the victim. “They’re trying to silence me!” Being a victim seems to be social currency nowadays. Also, if they’re banned they can believe that had they had the opportunity to respond to others posts they could have “won” the argument. It gives them a sort of “plausible deniability.”
Anyway, there is one member here who was banned for doing something that very well seemed similar, but was allowed to return to the forum (which I completely feel was the right decision). If suicide by mod was in fact his intent, maybe he could provide some insight. I’m sure you’re aware of who I’m referring to, but maybe that’s a conversation that is better suited for PM, as he may not appreciate being called out publicly and asked to explain his personal actions.
The people that I am aware of all had some peculiarity in their style or preoccupation that was evident long before the "suicide by mod". They all seemed to have a very rigid position with respect to some topic, or a style that would lead to never ending discussion.
My guess would be that getting banned was the only way they could claim they upheld their position "to the end", without giving ground. After all, when you're banned, you can't reply, even if you want to.
Ok, but why haven’t I seen this on other similar forums? Is there something about this forum that attracts these sorts of people?
Quoting khaled
We have a fair share of such tantrums, its the internet after all. This seems like something different, like these people are going through the motions of the same psychological effect.
Well again this is standard fare for the internet. I agree that misbehaviour can often be attributed to the psychology you mentioned but this is different. They dont want to quit, they dont want to soapbox, they dint want to rant or get in the last word...they wanna be banned. Its so strange to me. Quoting Pinprick
That would be enlightening.
Hmm. That makes sense. So maybe its simply a matter of the most rigid reed snapping the loudest. Likewise with the never ending discussion method. Thats true they do all seem to have one or both of those traits.
Quoting Echarmion
A matter of principal? Not so sure about that, but maybe.
I think it's that this forum is a bit more "personal" than most. In most forums you mainly see the post, don't see the same people too often, no way to customize a profile, etc. So people end up caring what others think of them because they talk to the same people. Maybe idk.
Quoting DingoJones
I think it's the same thing. If you've ever played a MOBA this would be "inting". Anyways I don't have a degree or anything and I don't know what I'm talking about. Just guesses.
Same here. Its strange and zi have a curiosity the strange.
One reason it's more frequent - or seems that way - might be that if you get banned here, you get your very own gravestone in the form of a post in the "bannings" treat. Often even get eulogies from other posters. It's a lot more visible than just disappearing quietly into the night.
Other forums don't usually even allow discussion of such decisions, let alone invite it.
Good point.
It wasn't suicide by mod but a stupid mistake (you can read up in the Bannings thread). It was a combination of an apology, the assurances after the ban it wouldn't happen again and his otherwise good posting history that led to an unban. Suicidees by mod tend to not want to get back to the forum. ;-)
I think Brett wanted to be a martyr. Leaving the forum may have felt like a defeat while being banned felt like a victory. He talked of "being silenced", he didn't get banned for the reasons he wanted to and so perhaps that's why he wanted to force their hand? It all seems to be based on stuff which happened in the last week or so.
Once I couldn't get my weed whacker to start and I threw my shoulder out yanking on the rope. It pissed me off so I threw it into the creek. As I watched it spinning through the air, sailing over the fence, I thought to myself, there must have been a better way to deal with it.
Little moments in time when we become unhinged only to regret it microseconds later.
I love this image :rofl:
Unfortunately it is, it is a sign of the times, which indeed I find very worrisome. The US looks bad now, and I don't want similar things happening here.
I remember the old PF. When Dubya Bush invaded Iraq and the WoT was in full swing, it wasn't at all so hateful, even if it was a bit tense as people came on the Forum to defend the US decision while others naturally were against it. But that was 17 years ago on another site. Then there are a lot of the same people here. Yet it didn't go on the level of personal insults as now. Or if it did, snap, they were out of the forum.
Now it's acceptable at least for some to use language, even mods, to use language that would have gotten them off the old site. Just stick to the rules and them being the same for everybody. Some could point fingers, but I think that it indeed is about the times we live in.
PF is in my view a "canary in the coal mine". If here different ideas aren't tolerated, then where then?
It has little to do with forums per se and more to do with any social group interaction. There are many among us that cannot handle being told we're wrong and do not enjoy being challenged on beliefs we hold. For those individuals, making a "statement" and "rage quitting" (as another poster put it), is the perfect way to make a splash and feeling self righteous before making an exit.
I make mistakes only to make myself more likable. it's a godlike quality where what apparent evil I might do is for the better and what errors I make are actually for the best. That's how great I am.
Its been ramping up for years, decades. I remember how people hated Bush jr, how he became a joke. Remember the show That’s My Bush (i think that was the name)? It was a sitcom about how stupid george bush was. That stood out. A sitcom making fun of the sitting president. Then came Obama. The hatred was so toxic and unhinged, and not just the racists. Average people suddenly became these rabid, decisional attack dogs. Obama was Hitler, he was the anti-christ. Didnt think it would get much worse than that but then of course Trump, wanders in off the tv set and taps into all that venom and darkness to get elected and now discourse is dead, everyones lost their minds. All it took was social media to make it easier for stupidity and division to widen and spread. Now, difference of opinion is a difference of good and evil in the hearts and minds of most people.
Quoting ssu
I cant say im much bothered by language. Just words to me, same as others. If “go fuck yourself” conveys the emotion or expression your going for then go ahead.
Quoting ssu
Indeed. The battleground of ideas has been demolished and reseeded to grow a sturdy crop of dogma and toxic ideology.
This is so true. It started way before Trump. Trump has been just the pinnacle of where it all came to as not only this media personality turned politician is a vitriolic populist (and extremely good at it), yet he simply wasn't fit to be the US President. But still, if it would have been Hillary, the toxicity would be similar. This isn't only about one person.
Quoting DingoJones
And as long as you can debate others who have totally different ideas is a positive sign.
When you can't there isn't much else than either separation or violence.
Did you teach that to Counterpunch?
That's why the ban hammer is needed. Its why you have punishments for students that eventually result in expulsion. Because there are some people who will fight until you utterly defeat them. To normal people, its a weird hill to stand on. But for them? It seems to be the only way they know how to function.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated. Fascism is one. Tolerating it leads to, well, you've seen what just happened.
I’d say even that should be “tolerated” to the extent that that means taking it as an idea about which we can discuss the pros and cons. It’s just one with very obvious cons — like, for example, what just happened.
People actually practicing fascism, inasmuch as that’s taken to mean a species of intolerance itself, of course cannot be tolerated, per the paradox of tolerance.
Depends on what you mean by tolerate. The best remedy for bad ideas like fascism is discussion, to show where these ideas fail and where they lead. So I think being tolerant of the idea in the arena of discourse is tolerable, even preferable. Outside that arena, say in the political arena, fascism just cannot be tolerated in a civil society. We’ve tried it, seen it, we dont like it so if someone wants to use it in an arena like that then its going to have to win in the battleground of ideas first.
I think there are two factors to this:
1. people who do that do so as the final act of making clear there are irreconcilable differences between themselves and the social group they're currently in,
and
2. these irreconcilable differences are taking place where there is a hirarchical social structure, a power differential, and the person in question is in a position of lesser power.
I think it's an act of getting closure to an unsatisfactory relationship.
Leaving quietly wouldn't give one closure.
Realizing that one is in the wrong place, and has been there for a long time, can look rather ugly.
All discourse is overshadowed by the power differentials at play. Even at a philosophy forum, where the power of the argument should be bigger than the strength of the argument from power. But in reality, the argument from power is always the strongest one.
It's a tough duplicitious dynamic to navigate.
Quoting DingoJones
I've seen it elsewhere a few times. I don't know what was happening via PM's or the stuff that was deleted, so I can't know for sure, but the common point seems to be: authoritarian politically correct moderators.
Quoting DingoJones
As far as I have seen, it's always been like that.
Who does??!
Esp. when being told what to do or how to behave by people who don't care about you, and who have made it clear that they don't care about you!
For my part, the thing that I tend to find stressful is the perception that nobody agrees with me. Even if I know better, if I'm well aware of prominent thinkers who agree with me... they're not here, or anywhere else that I am.
I'm fine having discussions with people who disagree, so long as there's a mix of agreement and disagreement. It's when a thread turns into a long interminable repetition of me vs everyone else participating that I feel discouraged.
For that reason I try to give signs of encouragement to others I agree with in other threads, even if I'm not going to go to the effort of really engaging in their battle against their opponents. Just so they know that someone is on their side, and they're not alone.
I think the forum would be a much more pleasant place if people generally would do things like that more often.
Where on earth did you get that idea from? Have you honestly seen any evidence of it, in general. Do people, in your experience, generally have a tendency to listen to arguments (no matter who they're from) and alter their opinions accordingly?
Of course not.
Venues such as philosophy forums are essentially intended as echo chambers, and people visit them for that purpose.
Yes, I realize this sounds awfully derogatory. But think about it: Who would make a point of visiting and posting at a forum which they know to be very different from their own views?
So you're suggesting we should become even more partisan? It's not enough that discussion be seen as a battle but that we must now have a jeering crowd egging each combatant on?
What do you think it says about our relationship with ideas that you feel bad when no-one is agreeing with you and you know that signs of agreement make you feel better? If I , for example, were to chime in to one of your discussions to say I agree, would that have the same effect on your well-being as if [insert some well-respected poster here]?
I think herein you have your answer as to why Dingo is exactly wrong that "The best remedy for bad ideas like fascism is discussion, to show where these ideas fail and where they lead". The result is only that ideas which draw a cheering crowd are bolstered and those which receive muted sniffs of derision as dropped.
If I don't have your sword, your bow, or your axe, then what use are your little words of support to me?
I think there are a small but significant number of people who've somehow misunderstood the nature of the 'marketplace of ideas'. More than average in fields like philosophy, politics, sociology... People seem to be unable to see the difference between something seeming to them to be the case and something's actually being the case, as if there were no further step that need be taken to get from the former to the latter. I think these people do indeed deliberately join forums whose culture is generally opposed to theirs, deluded into thinking that they only need present what seems obvious to them and all 'right thinking' people will fall into line on reading such cold hard logic.
(And they end up being called "trolls" by the forum members.)
People tend to be cognitive misers. They are willing expend only a little effort to understand other people, and they underestimate the effort a particular other person would need to make in order to understand them.
I would prefer that it not be seen at a battle at all, but if it's going to seem like some people are attacking you, instead of us all just cooperatively working on a puzzle together, then it's nice to have other people comforting and supporting you too. Someone to affirm that you're not completely crazy, that there's some worth and merit to your thoughts, even if there is also room for refinement.
Quoting Isaac
It would have a more positive effect on me for you to say something supportive than for someone I already know agrees with me to say the same thing.
(Saying this is the only reason I've bothered to respond to you here, as I have too much shit going on in real life to risk being drawn into another interminable fight with you, so I'm trying to just ignore you generally).
An anecdote for illustration: I recently redesigned an old website that I originally ran about two decades ago, and attempted then aborted a redesign of about a decade ago. During that aborted redesign a decade ago, one of the people I had worked on the site with two decades ago gave me some pretty negative feedback that made me feel very bad about my competency in that field in which I was trying to forge a career. In the midst of this recent design, I had to ask him for some advice on a complex part of the site that he had originally built, and when talking to him he said some very brief but positive comments about my new redesign. Having someone who had once seemed to pose themselves as an opponent instead say something supportive was a surprisingly enormous relief.
Additionally, I don't even know how to gauge who the generally well-respected posters here are, besides the mods. For all I can tell you're one of the in-crowd. If it was clear to me that everyone else disregarded your opinions as worthless, I would feel more comfortable doing so myself. Not that I would automatically do so; if I agreed with you I would stand against the popular crowd with you. But when so far as I can tell you're not just some crazy person I can safely ignore, it makes me feel obliged to address your responses, at whatever length necessary, no matter how obviously wrong I think you are.
It's how we learned to write but it makes for poor discussions. And I'm guilty as charged probably 90% of the time.
Years ago I had a post on racism on the old forum, trying to understand what the issue was with Dutch Black Pete. I got it was racist but I just couldn't understand why there was a focus on it while we had racist politicians that could be taken to task. One of my favourite moments was that click of understanding I got thanks to a post from @unenlightened about his wife's everyday life and golliwog dolls. Those moments are few and far between.
Nowadays I just seem to be arguing to offset nutty ideas.
Yes. I think that's true but this is one of the reasons why social media (all internet platforms really) might be such breeding grounds for extremism. Much of our bandwidth is occupied with the judgement of social relations - the intentions of others, their social position etc. It's supremely hard work (in terms of how much brain power it takes).
People use their resources differently in internet interactions, much information we'd normally use to judge someone's intent is unavailable so there's a theory that a lot of the behaviour popular online is an attempt to extract that kind of data from a medium we're not used to. Just a theory...
This reference to power seemed to be your main point. I dont think it overshadows all discourse, its just another factor and it may or may not be a significant factor in any given case.
Quoting baker
Its always been a thing yes, but thats not the same as that thing becoming more widespread or significant. Im talking about the latter.
While I agree, there's another, even simpler explanation, and that is that most people are not trained philosophers.
Philosophers are, ideally, supposed to have that characteristic critical distance towards claims, regardless whether those claims are made by themselves or by other people.
Yet typically, people, and that includes some of those who consider themselves philosophers or have advanced degrees in philosophy, feel very attached to their claims, see those claims as part of their identity, their property. So that when someone as much as addresses those ideas, those people feel like the other person has crossed the boundaries of the acceptable. This, of course, hobbles critical discussion.
Thinking back several decades when I was growing up, to be different in any way meant to be evil, or at least wrong or defective.
What do you think drives the social pressure for conformity?
Im the opposite, I don’t care if people agree with me or not. Im just not that invested in any conclusion I reach. By design, I think this is useful for avoiding bias, or dogmatism. People get married to their conclusions and end up closing their minds in various ways that Id rather avoid. Plus, most people are dumb so its hard to care what they think.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Maybe, but Im not sure pleasantness is what folks are after on a forum like this.
Are you sure the one resulted from the other, and not vice versa? What could less give the impression we're co-operatively working on a puzzle than people jeering on one 'side' or the other?
Quoting Pfhorrest
Yes. That's part of the problem with having lower standards of OP. That you're not crazy and your ideas have some merit should be the bare minimum to even be responded to. It should be assumed, not pointed out.
Quoting Pfhorrest
As I was just discussing above, this seems to me to be the crux of this entrenching. If a person who you think is not crazy tells you you're wrong, but you don't think you are, it surely demonstrates as clearly as possible that something's seeming to you to be the case cannot itself be sufficient evidence that it is the case. Yet, no amount of internal reflection is going to get any more than something's seeming to you to be the case. One cannot take another person's contrary position and examine it against one's own web of beliefs. It will as obviously fail such a test as taking a Land Rover component and bolting it to a Ferrari would fail. You have to create a virtual web of beliefs built around what your (non-crazy) interlocutor is saying - a kind of joint space which neither of you actually believe in. But since neither of you own this space, there's not much incentive to do so in a combative environment.
I know it seems rather fusty, but the process of citation and building very gradually and slowly on previous work is a grand scale manifestation of this mental process, the academic corpus in general being the shared web of beliefs which neither party completely believes. This is why I think that "I've re-written the whole of..." type posts are just combative from the start (no matter the intention of the poster). They eschew the shared space of beliefs we already have. Doing so is equivalent to turning up to a negotiation with gun and expecting that not to have any influence of the parties' approach.
I think one needs to be stronger than that, more self-confident, more self-efficacious.
Took a pretty leap to get to that bolded portion sir. Thats not what im saying. No matter who they’re from? Where did you get that from what I said?
Thats not been my experience at all.
I think social pressure to conform comes from our ape brain, the primitive instincts that remain from our evolutionary past.
It's not from what you said. I just mean by it that even in cases where people do renounce ideas after discussion, it's often traceable to the social position of the person with whom they're discussing, not the ideas themselves. The point you made was that "The best remedy...". I'm contesting that superlative.
Regardless of what folks are after on a forum like this, what purpose should a forum like this serve? I.e. what's a place like this good for, anyway?
I really don't think any serious breakthroughs in professional philosophy are going to be made here, so that's not it.
Nor do I really expect any widespread social opinions are going to be changed just from the small group of people talking here.
The only real use I can see for an internet forum about philosophy is people who for one reason or another aren't in a position to participate in the academic philosophical dialogue but who find the subject interesting and want to talk to other people who also find it interesting.
They can share thoughts that they've had and find out if others have had similar thoughts and what kinds of arguments for and against those thoughts have been made, and who (if notable) has made them.
Consider for comparison a physics forum. Say someone wanders onto one of those because they just read a lay text about general relativity and from what they've read it seems to imply to them that many large masses moving rapidly around a "stationary" mass (from a given frame of reference) should cause that "stationary" mass to begin to rotate in the direction that the other masses are moving around it. To them, this is a neat new idea they just came up with, that is implied by general relativity so far as they can tell, and they want to talk to someone who knows something about physics about it.
So they share it with the physics forum. What good can possibly come of that? Surely they're not going to make any real progress in physics there. But they can find out that yes in fact, something like that is an implication of general relativity, it's called frame-dragging, and here are various experiments confirming it and other theoretical consequences of it. If that was not the case, they could instead find out what the errors in their reasoning from GR were, or what evidence against that hypothesis has been found, and where to read more about it. If that wasn't the case either, they could at least find out who else had thought of that hypothesis and why it hasn't been tested thoroughly yet. Or if, best case scenario for them, it was a genuinely novel idea, someone could at least confirm that for them, even if nothing is really going to come of that fact, because they're a nobody without the education to act on that idea. Unless, perhaps, someone with the education to act on it happens to be reading that forum too.
That's a very interesting take on the problem. Thanks for sharing it!
Quoting Pfhorrest
For what it's worth, I agree with a lot of the things you write. I think you're a good thinker and you are an asset to this forum.
But it's better for my ego to disagree and prove I'm smart. So it's hard to suppress the urge to just do the quick, simple, combative replies to things I think are obviously wrong as opposed to trying to find something interesting to say about an already well thought out topic.
I think the emoji function is useful for this. If I see someone say something that I think is worth saying that's not being properly appreciated I'll often just reply with some combination of :up: :100: :clap: etc.
Also, thanks. :)
Quoting Pfhorrest
What? What just happened? Did I miss a thing?
Quoting Pfhorrest
Absolutely. I'd say that about almost anything. But propagandising is not discussion. I think questioning e.g. whether the Holocaust happened, i.e. disguising propaganda as debate, likewise.
There was an initially interesting thread on fascism recently, actually.
Yeah, this is the important bit. We have to draw a line, and the fact that doing so is fraught and involves contextual judgement does not absolve that duty.
Where someone, as has been increasingly the case, presents uncorroborated speculation again and again without updating their view in the light of evidence to the contrary, we can be sufficiently sure they're not here to 'debate' for us to make such a judgement call.
'Free speech' is already all too often confused with 'free access'. This is a debating platform and so only speech amenable to debate is generally appropriate for access to it.
What is your superior remedy to a bad idea?
Address the reason why someone is attracted to it.
I suppose the purpose of this forum is more or less specific to each person, falling under some broad categories. I think learning through discourse is a good general purpose of any forum.
To a bad idea? Any number of reasons. I dont follow why that answer challenges the assertion I made about discourse being the best remedy. Non-sequitor I would call it, but maybe Im missing something.
So do you have a superior remedy?
the point is that people, in the main, neither adopt nor reject ideas on the strength of rational argument. It's simply to easy to construct a rational argument to support too wide a range of possible ideas. By and large people adopt ideas as a kind of membership criteria for the social group they might wish to affirm their membership of, so if you want to change the ideas someone has you need to address the reasons why they're attracted to the social group which those ideas represent the membership criteria for.
Presenting a rational argument can help, of course, but only in that being able to muster rational support is an appealing characteristic of a social group. But it's only one appealing characteristic among many.
The point, I think, with the adoption of 'bad' ideas is that, the very fact that they lack rational support (they're 'bad' after all) is strongly indicative of the fact that people adopting them probably haven't done so because they were attracted to that characteristic. So appealing to them on those grounds is unlikely to succeed.
So your superior remedy is...?
If writing it three times in three different ways isn't doing the job I think we're not going to make any more progress with a fourth.
I dont think you’ve been as clear as you think. Id rather not guess and then have it cause confusion later on, so im trying to get a concise answer.
So I guess you think membership into another group? Thats a superior remedy in your view?
I think what @Isaac is trying to say is that you are very unlikely to change someone's mind in a non-professional conversation (like an internet forum) just by making what you think are good arguments. If you want to change people's minds, you need to first figure out what context they formed their opinion in in the first place, and then try to give them a new context in which they can then come to new conclusions.
Ok, thanks.
So in what way would someone figure out that context and provide them with a new context if not through discourse. Amend that, what better way than discourse?
Well, it's going to require communication (I suppose you could stalk them, figure out where they live and quietly gather information, but that's rather time-intensive). But it's a much different kind of conversation, because you wouldn't be trying to show them they're wrong via some logical syllogism or similar. I don't know whether I know any good strategy, but I suppose you'd be more focused on letting them talk and explain their view, and maybe adjacent views, and try to avoid to sound combative or dismissive. I have also heard it said that there is value to actually protesting and correcting false information immediately, because presenting people with evidence, especially if it involves people they respect, does have an effect in the long term.
Which doesn't work either. It's trivial to get a racist, for instance, to agree that such and such a deed or situation is regrettable: you'll see that here. Iirc I got NOS to agree that BLM aren't entirely unjustified pretty easily. Then they go to bed, go to that great reset button in the land of nighty-night, and come back reiterating the same shit as the day before. That's the problem with highly emotive irrational beliefs.
The purpose of engaging with someone with irrational and hateful beliefs is not to benefit them, in my opinion, but to leave no expression of such a belief unchallenged and unnamed.
And in doing so, aside from the rational pressure of your actual arguments against those beliefs, apply social and emotional pressure discouraging people from holding them. Both the person you're arguing against, but also, and perhaps more importantly, any undecided observers.
This connects back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread, about giving people support and letting them know they're not alone in their views. Feeling all alone applies an irrational social pressure. When I'm the only person arguing for one side of a disagreement, I can feel the irrational social pressure to just give up and agree with the others, a feeling like I'm a bad person for disagreeing with "everyone else", even if rationally I see no merit to their arguments.
About the only thing that props me up against that kind of social pressure is a much longer-ingrained social pressure that makes me feel like a bad person for not making decisions based entirely on their rational merit. So I feel like a bad person for being in a disagreement, but I'd feel just as much if not more like a bad person for caving to a bad argument in that disagreement, so I feel compelled to stand my ground and argue even if I'd really rather spend my time doing something else.
If it feels like there are others who will make my same points for me, or at least others who agree that the other side of the disagreement is wrong, then I don't feel social pressures at all -- I don't have to fight this fight, someone else will, or we can just be separate "tribes" and not be forced to engage -- and so I am more free to treat the discussion as a purely intellectual exercise, and make more reason-based decisions in it.
That's exactly why an important part of rhetoric is communicating to the audience that you are a good person who's on their side, trying to help them think through something, rather than attacking them. If they're in a social-conflict state of mind, they're not going to be open to reason. If they feel like they're among friends and figuring something out together, then they might be.
For the latter, yes. The former... I wouldn't hold my breath. Or waste it, for that matter. I understand what you're saying and the same thought occurred to me. In a closed group, what is "wrong" is largely conditioned by what is unacceptable: that's why we have shame.
But this isn't a closed group or anything like it. What we see is tendrils encroaching from a long way away, an expansion from crazytown into more thoughtful, open-minded territory precisely because it is more thoughtful and open-minded. The dumb arguments that we see here pass for profundity elsewhere. Nothing happens if you snip those tendrils except that , with luck, they die here. Elsewhere they carry on.
Btw there are rational people who are just plain wrong. One of my best friends used to be a racist and a homophobe. Difference was he wanted to examine his beliefs and have those conversations. There was always a part of him that knew he was better than his upbringing, so he reached out. He didn't deny facts, never stood by a hypocritical position*, and wasn't illogical. The basic human decency I often speak of was obviously there beneath a veneer of bad culture. It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference. He didn't have a chip on his shoulder, for starters.
*I convinced him that homosexuality could be beautiful by inviting him to examine his own positive views on lesbian and anal porn. Look, I never said this was highbrow... it worked, that's all I'm saying.
Well i wasnt talking about specific kinds of discourse. Obviously there are going to be better or worse forms by of it. If you are just yelling at them and not listening you wont make much headway. So maybe I should amend my claim to “good discourse is the best remedy for bad ideas.”
:up:
I don't know. I read somewhere that people are stupid. Seems like as good an explanation as any.
Forums like this are open to the public; some of the walking wounded are attracted to forums because they are warm and dry, and there might be snacks offered (where are our snacks? I've been waiting for years.).
Yes, I intended to include those things under “a sign of the times”. Social media and fear based news are big parts of it in the general public but I thought there might be something specific to this forum. Perhaps suicide by mod is one of the ways those with a philosophical bent express that stress.
This is not only a human tendency, but something that a few people - most of the time, the intellectual minority - consciously decide to adopt as a tactic of power. This extremism, polarity, division, etc ... in today's society - more precisely, in the West - has happened in history at least once in the past - that we have records of -.
During the third and fourth centuries AD in the Roman civilization, it was noticeable the slow death of neutrality and intellectual freedom of individuals due to the cultural and moral decay that had been afflicting society. The most renowned philosophical groups in Greece - such as the Stoics, for example - began to fragment more and more thanks to the no longer homogeneous metaphysics they were discussing. Ha, even Plotinus, one of the most prestigious thinkers of the age, said - through the records of one of his disciples, Porphyry -:
"Philosophers, intellectuals, and Romans, are only those who look to the future like us"
This return to the most basic and rustic values ??and principles is only the result of the development of centuries of prosperity and wealth - again, in the West -.
What some would call "apocalyptic thoughts", I see only as the wisdom of the studying of history. We are already headed for a new Dark Ages, it is only a matter of time before our Rome falls.
As Nietzsche already said in the 1800s:
"The question is no longer how to get out of the abyss, but if you want to fall into it, in hopelessness, or dancing."
How do you imagine the “new Dark Ages” looking in thrse modern times?
All of this stuff has been going on for decades, but NextDoor hasn't been around all that long to report it with excruciating frequency.
It's been suspected, if not known for certain, that people who watch a lot of commercial TV newscasts think the world is a far more dangerous place than it actually is. Add Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, and all the rest--anyone (even those with a philosophical bent) who 'consumes' that content is going to be negatively affected.
Plus, there's a fair amount of disputatious talk here. Philosophically bent person A says one thing, and philosophically bent person B slams them. Philosophically twisted person C chimes in, and philosophically twisted person D is torqued out. Philosophical suicide follows. The philosophically walking wounded die in the streets.
What kind of world are you living in if you cannot see the deep chaos into which humanity is descending?
You know that many historians have stopped using the term "dark age" because it just wasn't that dark. Certainly, the empire was over; the benefits of empire began to disappear, but resilient people were busy with their lives, and were (advertently and accidentally) developing new culture. True, the Roman establishment in Britain decamped, but that doesn't mean that the newly arrived Angles and Saxons were in a depressed funk about it.
Honestly, Roman civilization is a reflection of ours in everything but technology. What, during the fall of Rome, was used as a justification, means and end - Christianity - in our time, will be ideologies in its place- most likely what we now call Communism and Capitalism (?) - I am in doubt about the second term - -. Symbology and subjective absolutism will be the rule of this new Dark Age intelect, just as it was during the 6th to 9th centuries - ex: The Germanic kings who conquered Western Europe, were blatantly hypocritical in the fact that they called themselves Christians and virtuous but they were anything but Christian and virtuous, but to maintain their power bases, they had to symbolically represent what they weren't -.
I do not believe that we will have monarchies again, but dictatorial regimes transvested as republics. This, I can say with certainty - as in a letter between Pepin I - Charlemagne's father - and the Byzantine Emperor, where they discussed the lands of the pontifical state, the Roman State was still called as the "Holy, Divine, Blessed by God and Jesus Christ, Republic of the Romans" - this already at the height of the Dark Ages - 8th century - -.
If a scenario you want to imagine, imagine the largest and most "civilized" cities in the western world today, but completely overwhelmed by the rot of nihilism. Garbage tossed all over the place, hypocritical graffiti on each wall, rubble of ruined structures, an illiterate population who, being ignorant, will live in this environment as if it were the best in the world. A population, which had created new languages ??thanks to its ignorance of language norms; who talked through slangs - as the romance languages ??were born from vulgar Latin -.
I'm just not sure yet if we are living on the edge of this scenario, or if we still live during the degeneration of Rome. The plague has already occurred, but not yet the war. Only time will tell.
But one thing is certain:
"Those who are being lynched today, will be worshiped as saints in this future society."
There is no denying that the period between 476 AD - fall of Rome - until the year 1000 AD were centuries of technological and cultural regression. Just the fact that we consider that during the 15th century we had a "renaissance" already disproves this hypothesis that the period was not obscure. The point that I defend is that from 476 to 1000, the term "Dark Ages" is fair and valid because it was the period when everyone - no one excluded - tried to imitate the glory and light of ancient Rome. After the year 1000, it is much more visible that Europe had already developed a culture capable of overcoming the resentment that had overtaken the society in question to Rome, and it is not by chance that it is only after the year 1000 AD that we have a new noticeable technological progress and moral advancement of Christian Europe.
To compare the Frankish society - for example - that invaded and conquered Roman Gaul, with the Roman society that previously existed there, is to belittle and diminish the advances and achievements of the Romans.
What you are saying is very important. I am glad that you have placed it here because at least it cannot be ignored. I have been trying to engage in discussion about the present state of of the world, during the last week, but I don't think many people are interested. So, I hope that a lot of people read and take on board what you are saying.
People, when given freedom, tend not to discuss what bothers them. Currently, not even the possibility of discussing what bothers them is being respected. Perhaps for this and other reasons - such as ignorance, deliberately hiding facts, etc ... - these discussions are decreasing more and more.
In question to Rome compared to the current West. I believe that the collapse will not be single, but double - thanks to the now "double west" - the Americas and Europe - -.
The most likely scenario to the collapse is one where Western Europe collapses and the United States fragment. Two Romes in this case, double the fall, twice as much chaos, twice as dark.
Perhaps people are worried really and that makes them avoidant. I guess we all use escape mechanisms. Sometimes I start to write posts and begin to alter them because I think they are going to be grim to read. I also fluctuate in terms of how pessimistic or optimistic I feel about what is going on.
You frame the whole picture well in its historical context too. I suppose we also see the picture differently based on where we are based geographically and what portrayals we are given in the media.
But it does indeed seem that so much is fragmenting and that is why you were able to slot it into this thread. Anyway, I will log off and go to bed now, so goodnight and I hope that people take an interest in what you have written.
Im not sure what you are referencing, where did I give that impression?
I see. So more like a cultural dark ages rather than some sort of apocalyptic reset?
It will probably be a gradual degeneration of culture and technology. I don't believe it will be a complete and revolutionary collapse - as was the Bronze Age Collapse -.
However, what lasts longer, has much more time to make suffer...
Gus: I'd never underesteem the Roman Empire. The end of the Roman Empire significantly degraded (even if it did not totally end) trade in food, metals, fabric, people, and knowledge. Technology was lost (dome and aqueduct building, organizational practices, scientific and technological knowledge such as it was, and so on. There were extensive and long term consequences from that loss. What were integrated parts of the western empire became islands. The priorities, biases, and intentions of the Roman Church also had extensive long-lasting consequences for Western Culture.
The people alive in MMXXI perhaps experience some of the same disquiet, unease, confusion, and anxiety people did in CDL Rome. "Things are falling apart; the center is not holding." The best seem to lack passionate conviction, and the worst have Twitter accounts which they use with a vengeance.
I would still affirm that the masses have no idea that their routine lives are about to collapse. Do not underestimate the people, they are much more ignorant than they seem.
Rome collapsed, and I doubt that the mundane plebe was aware of the fact. And even if they were, it did not change much on their lifes - as the reforms of Diocletian in 285 AD had already practically established serfdom and what we now call as "Feudalism" in the Roman Empire more than 200 years before its fall -.
I think one motivation is also as a form of "philosophical self-help". Ie. when people have a real problem IRL and they are trying to make sense of their situation via philosophical insight, so they come to a forum like this and discuss it here.
It's the old tradition of the consolations of philosophy.
The point is that that's too general.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Hence the methods for refuting irrational beliefs, such as Albert Ellis' here (I parsed and highlighted the text for clarity and repaired the strange hypenation):
[i]If you want to increase your rationality and reduce your self-defeating irrational beliefs, you can spend at least ten minutes every day asking yourself the following questions and carefully thinking through (not merely parroting!) the healthy answers. Write down each question and your answers to it on a piece of paper; or else record the questions and your answers on a tape recorder.
/.../
Disputing (D) your dysfunctional or irrational Beliefs (iBs) is one of the most effective of REBT techniques. But it is still often ineffective, because you can easily and very strongly hold on to an iB (such as, “I absolutely must be loved by so-and-so, and it’s awful and I am an inadequate person when he/she does not love me!”). When you question and challenge this iB you often can come up with an Effective New Philosophy (E) that is accurate but weak: “I guess that there is no reason why so-and-so must love me, because there are other people who will love me when so-and-so does not. I can therefore be reasonably happy without his/her love.”
Believing this almost Effective New Philosophy, and believing it lightly, you can still easily and forcefully believe, “Even though it is not awful and terrible when so-and-so does not love me, it really is! No matter what, I still need his/her affection!”
Weak, or even moderately strong, Disputing will therefore often not work very well to help you truly disbelieve some of your powerful and long-held iB’s; while vigorous, persistent Disputing is more likely to work.
One way to do highly powerful, vigorous Disputing is to use a tape recorder and to state one of your strong irrational Beliefs into it, such as, “If I fail this job interview I am about to have, that will prove that I’ll never get a good job and that I might as well apply only for low-level positions!”
Figure out several Disputes to this iB and strongly present them on this same tape. For example: “Even if I do poorly on this interview, that will only show that I failed this time, but will never show that I’ll always fail and can never do well in other interviews. Maybe they’ll still hire me for the job. But if they don’t, I can learn by my mistakes, can do better in other interviews, and can finally get the kind of job that I want.”
Listen to your Disputing on tape. Let other people, including your therapist or members of your therapy group, listen to it. Do it over in a more forceful and vigorous manner and let them listen to it again, to see if you are disputing more forcefully, until they agree that you are getting better at doing it. Keep listening to it until you see that you are able to convince yourself and others that you are becoming more powerful and more convincing.[/i]
This is a treatment that a professional psychologist devised, and it's aimed for people who take up the effort of changing their beliefs on their own accord.
It's conceivable that something similar can be facilitated for an individual person by other people, even in a forum setting. But it would take a prohibitive amount of effort.
That is certainly the case. Over the years quite a few participants have laid out personal problems, sometimes ethical dilemmas, and identifiable mental illnesses for "the group" to discuss. Serious cases (there were some) were strongly urged to seek psychiatric help. Depressed people, who number in the millions, are frequent philosoph-therapeutic 'patients'. Quite a few of our long-term regulars have experienced depression. My own experience with depression has been that IF one can change one's life circumstances to suit one's preferences, depression can get a whole lot better. Unfortunately, a lot of life circumstances just aren't easily changed. Bad jobs, difficult relationships, long commutes, loneliness, rage, boredom, anxiety, debt, and a dozen other conditions can't just be waved away. IF ONLY...
And sometimes events intervene and problems get resolved and life gets better--much to our surprise.
Yeah, last time I went to a therapist about as far as we ever got was a loop of her saying "there are two ways to change how you feel about a situation, change the situation or change how you feel about it", and me responding "yeah, I've tried and failed to change the situation, so now I'm here to change how I feel about it. How do we do that?" and never getting a straightforward answer.
I can see your point, but a few signs of token appreciation just don't do it for me. In fact, it has the opposite effect.
Yes, to a very great extent. Although in such large amorphous groups as we move in nowadays, it's often virtual or imaginary social groups constructed by media.
But it being a criteria for social group membership isn't the only reason for adopting an idea. I'm just saying it's a very significant one among those who adopt ideas which, on the face if it, are very difficult to support rationally. Having adopted such an idea is a fairly strong indication that such a person isn't particularly swayed by an idea's being easy to support rationally. If they were, they'd unlikely have adopted the one in question.
And that's really the key problem By debating with such people, you're giving them an extra reason for holding their idea - it's taken seriously enough to be discussed by pseudo intellectuals - now they get to be members of both social groups, whatever one had the idea as its membership criteria, and those people serious enough to discuss ideas, it just makes them think "well, at least I'm being taken seriously, there must be something in this".
What's worse for a would-be intellectual, being disagreed with, or being ignored? Why validate the idea with a back-story that it might actually be one of the viable options in the great 'marketplace of ideas'?, even if the the satisfaction is double-edged (there've been numerous posts I've made that I would have preferred a full-throated attack on to the disinterested atrophy of mutterings that actually followed)?
I think that's the reason behind the phenomenon. As @Echarmion put it, which I pretty much agree with...
Quoting Echarmion
... like a junkie looking for an ever bigger hit, there's a desperation not to lose the attention the posts are getting from the illuminati, and to ensure that, the unreasonableness which caused the responses in the first place has to be constantly ramped up until it's eventually too much for the rules to accommodate. You see the same among the 'celebrity' polemicists, an ever increasing extremity to maintain their position in the spotlight.
It's funny you should say this because it's pretty much the same reason I use to reach the conclusion about academic precedent which you evidently don't agree with, so it'd be interesting to hear how you manage to reach such a radically different conclusion from the same premise.
In science, there's probably a few score researchers in any specific field that might intersect with a philosophical outlook, maybe even into the low hundreds. In philosophy, lower numbers, but still relevant. All of them putting a considerable amount of effort into the "thinking through something" you're referring to. How much indication do you think it gives to them that you're on their side if people completely ignore all of their efforts when positing their 'theory', in favour of blank-slate declarations of what they 'reckon' is the case?
If you want people to read your arguments and say "me too..." then why not extend the same courtesy to everyone in academia who have been wrestling with the same topics your arguments relate to or touch on?
Firstly, because I'm not in any kind of dialogue with them personally. It's not like they're hanging around forums like this for me to talk to. Also, a lot of them are dead. I can't personally tell Mill and Kant what I think about their ethical disagreements; I can only tell others alive today who visit the same places I have access to what I think about those prestigious dead people and their thoughts.
Secondly, because I don't do this for a living and so can't dedicate all of my time to being abslutely sure that I've read absolutely everything on a subject of interest to me before discussing it with others. If you insist that nobody share any of their thoughts on anything until they've done a thorough survey of all the most cutting-edge research in the field, you're asking that nobody but PhDs in a given topic ever discuss that topic, and so for informal discussion forums like this to stop existing.
(That is the overall impression that I get from you: that you're bothered that people who aren't perfect experts are talking about things, and basically want places like this to stop existing).
One thing I hope to learn by discussing things with others in places like this is who else has said what on the subject in question, from other non-professionals who may have a different incomplete picture of everything that's ever been said thus far than I do. And to do likewise for them. So we can all learn a little bit more about this topic that we're unable to dedicate our lives to being perfect experts at, but still find interesting nevertheless.
I see. So basically a difference between a consequentialist ethic and virtue ethic, I guess. I wouldn't disregard their contribution, not because they can (or do) actually read what I write, but because it's not polite to do so, regardless of the circumstances limiting the consequence. Same reason I wouldn't condone shouting racist expletives into an empty room. It's not right regardless of the fact that no-one can hear them.
Your second reason seems more odd though. I find it difficult to understand the seemingly contradictory stance of being interested enough in a topic to formulate a theory, refine it (evidently) and post it to a public forum, but not interested enough to type the question into a search engine (or better still a preprint server) and see who else has already put the time and effort into researching it.
There is a happy medium between making stuff up without a shred of preliminary research and doing a "a thorough survey of all the most cutting-edge research".
Quoting Pfhorrest
I'm neither.
My interest is twofold. Firstly, I think there are circumstances where promulgation of ideas without evidence can be harmful and I'd like to see that minimised, but that's a fairly limited set. Secondly, my interest is in how people think. When I see some behaviour I think might have an interesting mechanism, I like to pursue it. This idea of wanting to discuss a topic with lay people but not wanting to read what experts have to say about it is just such a behaviour. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want to do that, yet evidently it is very popular. That intrigues me.
I'm guessing people want to give their ideas validity but without the risk?
I think it's a kind of classism, sometimes reverse classism. It's about "knowing your place".
For example, the local university sometimes holds open philosophy lectures (well, it used to, before the lockdowns). But I wouldn't go there (again), even though I am interested in the topics (usually for tangible personal, practical reasons).
I am vividly and painfully aware that I am "not one of them", so I don't go. I wouldn't go to a philosophy forum that is "more serious" either (as in, where the requirement is that one has a degree in philosophy).
There's also the personal experience of professional philosophers looking down on me. Some pity or casual contempt. I certainly don't feel free talking to them, even when the opportunity presents itself.
The Elegance of the Hedgehog gives an account of this phenomeon, albeit the lady protagonist doesn't discuss stuff on the internetz (and I think she has a way too high opinion of herself and her philosophical abilities and knowledge).
It's a quick read. I think it will offer some answers to your question, if you haven't read the book yet.
I'm not sure if you're talking about me in particular here or about people more generally, but I do have a BA in philosophy and I have also read about it casually in the decade plus since graduation, so I myself am not coming at this from a point of zero preliminary research. If anything I would think "you have a degree in the topic already" would be too high a threshold for participating in discussion, even if "degree" only means BA (or even AA) and not PhD.
And I for one certainly don't look down on people who come here posting things unaware of the research that has come before them. I'm happy that they're interested in a topic that I can share knowledge about, and I like to encourage them when I think they're on the right track, point out counterarguments when I think they're not, and give them the names of authors who have written more on the subject if they want to read more.
One thing about you personally and your accusations of "making stuff up" that I've noticed is you seem to disregard the distinction between philosophy and psychology, such when someone proposes a philosophical framework as an interesting or useful way of thinking about things, you seem upset that they're not aware of empirical psychological research to the effect that people tend not to think about things that way, when those two things are not in conflict.
"X is a useful way to think about things" and "Y is how people tend to think about things" can both be true, no matter the X and Y. So people saying things like "try thinking of it this way, it dissolves problems with thinking of it that other way" doesn't contradict any scientific findings that people do think that other way. It's a matter of direction of fit: how do we think vs how should we think.
Interesting. What's odd about that phenomenon, if it's true, is that the condescension (perceived or otherwise), would be presumably based on exactly the course of action the offended parties then pursue in response to it - to make claims without research.
It's not as if the academic elite are above having to research and cite sources (albeit each other).
I don't doubt that there's snobbishness in academia, but it seems rather a bizarre wish that one be welcomed into a group for behaving in exactly the opposite manner to the accepted behaviour of that group. It seems a bit like being offended at being chucked out of a football club for carrying the ball.
Thanks for the book recommendation though. It does sound like an interesting read.
No, just your comment as quoted.
Quoting Pfhorrest
...is the element I'm having trouble with. To me 'interested in a topic' starts with reading a book about it, or some journal articles. It doesn't start with presuming whatever I happen to reckon about it after a few minute's thought is probably right and I'd better broadcast it publicly.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Not sure I understand what you're saying here. That there's a distinction between how it might be useful to think and how people actually do think seems trivially true. The whole of clinical psychology is based on the premise. But these are not the claims I'm interested in at this level. I wouldn't respond to any claim of "we ought to...", with "you're wrong because people don't... Do your research!".
In another thread recently I was putting forth a philosophical conception of how (the concept of) willing should be understood in relation to (the concept of) desiring, with analogy to (the concepts of) perception and belief, and you replied with something derisive to the effect that I was making something up, as though you thought I was postulating a way that humans empirically do tend to think, rather than suggesting a useful way to think.
I'm suggesting in this thread that you seem to sometimes read what should charitably be understood as philosophy -- about the usefulness of concepts, even when it's not spelled out with "we ought to..." -- with claims about empirical psychology.
Interesting. So how are you measuring 'useful'? I kind of presumed that any assessment that a way of looking at things might be useful would at the very least be based on the idea that it might somewhat reflect the way things actually are.
Whichever of our mental processes you're describing a 'useful way of looking at', they are carried out by a real and actual brain, and if the workings of the real actual brain preclude the mechanism you're advocating we imagine, I struggle to see how you might still judge it likely to be 'useful'. I would have thought a fundamental conflict with the way things actually are is a pretty good indication that a way of looking at them might not be so useful.
I do wonder about where humanity is going and it something which I probably have thought about since childhood. The last few years have raised so much query about the climate and ecology. The pandemic has raised questions about the stability of many cultures as well.
I find it hard to imagine what is going to happen exactly because life is becoming unpredictable. A year ago we would not have imagined that life would have been turned upside down as it has been. But while it is hard to predict, I think that it is about the most important topic for philosophy but perhaps many just flee from the intensity.
I think that it was great that the topic popped into this thread last night and probably took many by surprise. However, I would imagine that the topic won't really be discussed properly here. It is becoming a great long thread, with a jumble of ideas. One possible are for the discussion is in the matter could be in the thread I have going on disasters and where are we going? It is probably not the most popular thread but there were a certain amount of partakers in the discussion. Alternatively, one of you might wish to start a new thread if you think that you might catch a new audience.
- eating babies
- performing scientific experimental surgery on unwilling living people without anesthetics
- inciting insurrection, riots, and revolutions
- effectively hiring others to kill a particular person
- exchanging recipes of untraceable deadly poisons
- grabbing Poossys
- poisoning the water supply of a city
- polluting the environment
- non-zero carbon emission
- global warming
- smoking (but vaping Cannaboids is okay)
- vaccing and waning
Now you're really trying to annoy the right. :P I mean, take their liberties, their guns and their platforms, but don't tell them that companies can't kill hundreds of thousands of people through wilful poisoning of their water supply. Du Pont are heroes to these people.
The act of you already realizing that the future of society is unpredictable is already a clear symptom of the decadence that afflicts our civilization.
Like it or not, this current "globalization" is not sustainable for long periods of time. Homogeneity, on the other hand, is - it is not by chance that we had a 1000 years of a homogeneous and culturally similar Europe and Middle East during the Middle Ages -.
Again I will quote Rome:
- The old period called "Pax Romana" - Roman Peace - from 44 BC to 180 AD - - was a period of economic, social, cultural and moral prosperity within the already established society of Rome. Since you can currently travel from the USA to Russia moderately easy, the Britons could travel from their homeland - Britannia - to Egypt with such ease as well. The current global economic structure is a reflection of the "global" economy of antiquity - where the economies of the Roman Empire, Sassanian Persia, Han China andAksumite Ethiopia, were dependent on each other in a clear example of an economic organism -. It just takes that this peace lasts for a long period of time for humanity to stagnate. And after stagnation, what comes is decay.
It just takes that a group of events of gigantic scales decide to happen in the same space of 50 years for any society to collapse - a political, economic, and biological crisis was enough to bring Rome to its knees - where the Roman civilization would only rise again thanks to the drastic reforms by Diocletian - where the period named "Dominate" begins, a time of despotism and autocracy that would last throughout the following, Middle Ages - which completely changed the life of the Roman citizen - therefore, what guarantees that our civilization will be more resistant than that of Rome?
Where in Rome, the citizen became the serf, the warrior became the soldier, and the "Princeps Civitatis" - First Citizen - became the "Imperator" - Emperor -, in the west the citizen will become the proletariat, the soldier will be the revolutionary, and the President, the Dictator...
It can be based on that. But in my experience, it's just a general disregard for lays, as in "Ah, you haven't actually studied philosophy at university, so you don't actually know anything, and so there's no point talking to you."
(Are you American? I found that Americans have difficulty understanding classism the way (at least old-fashioned) Europeans do.)
No, there's no wish to be welcomed to that group. There is a sense of being excluded from it by default.
It's similar with other areas, esp. art. Someone who was raised the old-fashioned European way would consider it inappropriate that a person from the working class would go to the theatre or to a concert of classical music. It's unbecoming. And this belief is held both by upper class people as well as by the working class.
Problems emerge for the working class person who inexpilcably finds themselves with an interest in classical music, literature, or philosophy. Then they see for themselves what it means not to belong.
Right, do so.
Another reason for this is that people who don't have a formal education in philosophy simply don't know how philosophy is done. They might even think that in order to produce a philosophical text, one simply sits down and puts pen to paper or finger to keyboard, and that's that. They don't see the role of a formal education in philosophy. They don't understand the role of research.
A formal education in philosophy (ideally) provides one with knowledges, esp. the meta-knowledge of the field, that is very difficult or impossible to obtain on one's own.
To be uncharitable, we could say that lay philosophers suffer very much under the Dunning-Krüger effect where they overestimate their abilities and lack the knowledge to be aware of their deficits.
I definitely see signs of decadence. Often, the signs of decadence come from religious parts of the population, but obviously we are speaking in a much wider sense. There is so much fragmentation in all aspects of life and it is becoming much more pronounced.
I find your historical picture and would imagine that have probably studied history in some depths. My own background is more a mixture of philosophy and psychology. So, you are probably more versed in the idea of cycles. I definitely believe that there are cycles and probably the way I had conceived cycles was more along the lines of the Hindus. I have even thought in terms of the astrological age cycles, such as the transition from the age of Pisces to Aquarius.
I definitely don't think that what we are seeing is just like the end of the middle ages. I would say that it is equal to the fall of Rome, if not more.The reason I say possibly more, is the whole climate concern and whether the earth could become uninhabitable.
I am just hoping that the whole pandemic might be a wake up call, to enable people to be more aware and revolutionary in thinking. I do wonder if it might be our last chance.
You know the phrase:
"Those who do not study the past are bound to repeat it"
This summarizes the entire recorded history of mankind - and I believe that it has been the same in the thousands of years in which we have not developed writing -.
In terms of "cycles", humanity - within history - has already gone through 2 - the "Collapse of the Bronze Age", and the "Fall of the Roman Empire" - and is currently going through another. To what extent we are bound to repeat this cycle cannot be answered, however, I believe in two possibilities for the end of this repetition:
1º: Humanity, at some point in the future, will become extinct, thus putting an end to the cycle.
or
2 º: We will transcend this cycle in some way, be it technological, psychological, biological, etc...
Quoting Jack Cummins
Don't get me wrong, we are going through something equal to or worse than the fall of Rome.
And if we really fall, this will probably be the first and last time that we will reach the technological level we have today, as our entire civilization today is based on petroleum. The shallower pits have already been completely dried out, and the remaining ones are difficult to reach. If society collapses in any way, the technology for accessing these pits will be lost, and therefore, having no more access to the shallow ones, we - humanity - will be doomed to a technological future of equal levels if not worse than during the Modern Age - 1453 to 1789 -.
Yes, I think that the whole petroleum problem is the biggest one. Anyway, I have a couple of other replies from you on other threads. I will look at them tomorrow because my eyes and brain are tired out for today.
We have probably passed peak oil, which means that in the long run (next 150 years) oil will get steadily more expensive and more difficult to obtain until we can't.
The break of only a few generations of cultural reproduction which an environmental catastrophe could cause would affect everything, pretty much all negatively. The culture would regress back to "a world made by hand" as Kunstler illustrated in his several novels under that title. Gone would be most medicines, most medical equipment, medical training, and so on. The electrical production system would be very, very hard for people, without lots of trained engineers, to restart. Agriculture would continue on, but on an 19th century basis, IF we were lucky.
We probably would not be able to reknit an unraveled civilization.
Some of my friends are still optimistic to the point of saying:
"Even if humanity, dependent on oil, collapses completely. In the future, the survivors, in a few hundred years, will develop new methods of technology that will have made them more advanced than even us today!"
Perhaps. But the likelihood of this is minimal. The Middle Ages lasted for a 1000 years. What guarantees that we will not have a 1000 years of stable stagnation in the future as we had in the past?
I can assure you that the current "overpopulation" concern will not materialize. We will probably go back to the 1 billion mark in the next 300 years - for comparison, Rome, in 117 AD, had 1 million inhabitants - the equivalent of a city today having more than 300 million people - and in 200 years, this population dropped to 50 thousand - the equivalent of the 300 million dropping to almost 500 thousand people - -.
A few hundred years for recovery is plausible. I think it would depend on how much literacy were retained, and whether enough print and analog material survived (digitally stored information will be lost forever, most likely). A substantial group of readers with access to basic scientific, technology, and general knowledge books would make recovery much more likely. Knowledge won't make oil gush out of shallow wells, but it could direct efforts to recover, even with substantial handicaps.
Two more things come to mind:
One, lay philosophers sometimes (often?) have a real problem that they are trying to get some perspective on. Like a dfficult ethical situation with a neighbor or a boss. They want to solve that problem, and they are not interested in philosophy per se. So their focus is rather narrow and they are under pressure to solve the problem, to make a practical decision one way or another (such as whether to file a complaint or not).
Two, some people see research and referencing merely as a necessary evil, or trivial at best. I've known people with college educations (what to speak of those with less) who think this way.
You can see this also in people's atittudes toward (academic) plagiarism -- some people just see no problem with taking an idea or a bit of text from someone else without noting where they got it from. Not necessarily because they'd have no problem with stealing or because they would want to appropriate someone else's ideas and pass them on as their own, but because they have no sense of intellectual property nor a sense for the existence of a network and history of research and researchers in a particular field. (They don't see their own work as being part of that network.)
If this is inting, who gets the 300g?