1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

Can we ever change anything?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've been away from the site for some time wrestling with my sneaking suspicion that no matter how hard I(and, by extension, everyone else) try, we will not ever be able to change people's minds; that all this debate and conflict is, while enjoyable, pointless. People's views are, for the most part, already set by the time they get here, and, once I factored in moral relativism, I honestly can't persuade myself that my arguments are really affecting anything. However, since you're all awesome people:wink:, I've decided to see what you have to say about it. I look forward to hearing from you all.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,267 • Replies: 39

No top replies

My own personal observations are:
Arguments rarely persuade (except by intimidation)
Kindness and standing strong in honest conviction (while others prove themselves wrong) earns people the power of persuasion.

Basically I have noted that integrity is key....and it works!

0 Replies

Sometimes, when one thinks that there is a probability of the other's argument to be true, one is put in a position where he or she is vulnerable to a false argument and sometimes convinced because of the other person's determination. Well that was my experience. It's complicated and I certainly don't want to be stubborn beyond reason, but it's better to cling on to what you believe until someone has undeniably proven your beliefs wrong. Of course, then that might make one feel bitter... It's complicated.

Oh, and I don't agree with moral relativism :wink:

0 Replies

Can we ever stop the changes in people's thinking? What we most often dislike is that they do not change in what we consider the right direction. I just want to see them (and myself) EXPAND, to loosen or open up, to rid themselves of the condition: hardening of the categories.

0 Replies

Re: Can we ever change anything?

Taliesin181 wrote:

I've been away from the site for some time wrestling with my sneaking suspicion that no matter how hard I(and, by extension, everyone else) try, we will not ever be able to change people's minds; that all this debate and conflict is, while enjoyable, pointless. People's views are, for the most part, already set by the time they get here, and, once I factored in moral relativism, I honestly can't persuade myself that my arguments are really affecting anything. However, since you're all awesome people:wink:, I've decided to see what you have to say about it. I look forward to hearing from you all.

If you read me, then doubt will fly away, certainty will be your reward and all will be well.
But if you read me and doubt what I say, then you have not read me. Instead of reading and understanding, we find instead stunted imagination attempting to place the seal of truth on the jumble of shapes and letters that move and wobble chaotically across the back of your eyeballs.

0 Replies

Nice John Jones.

To read and understand is to not doubt.

Not

Hi, JLNobody

How is non-being?

Wait

Silence.

0 Replies

What can I say, Twyvel? What a joy to hear from you again. I'd sure like to know (by PM if you prefer) where you've been and what you've been doing, relative to our common interests.

By the way, JJ is surely jesting.

0 Replies

Yes JLNobody, John Jones is surely jestly.

Though his/her poetry-prose did remind me of an encounter with some religious folks who were working from the idea that understanding is agreeing.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Yes JLNobody, John Jones is surely jestly.

Though his/her poetry-prose did remind me of an encounter with some religious folks who were working from the idea that understanding is agreeing.

Truly, my word shall endure for an age sufficient to change the face of mankind. And if mankind thwarts fate by seeking re-union with the ape-man beast, then again shall I, or another like me, emerge triumphant to bring them to their glorious state.

0 Replies

John Jones wrote:

Quote:

Truly, my word shall endure for an age sufficient to change the face of mankind. And if mankind thwarts fate by seeking re-union with the ape-man beast, then again shall I, or another like me, emerge triumphant to bring them to their glorious state.

Oh Changer
Can the changer change?
Can the changer change change?
Can change change the changer?

Is there change but no changer?
Are changers changing?

Can you tell,
Oh can you tell,
A change from a changer?

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscape but in having new eyes".

Marcel Proust

0 Replies

Ray: I disagree with the statement that it's better to cling until proven completely wrong. While you certainly shouldn't change positions every time you have a conversation, you should also be receptive to new ideas. A closed mind can neither receive nor give.

Your last line is what intrigues me, though. Why don't you agree with moral relativism? I've come to the conclusion that, since morality is socially transmitted, and would thus vary across societies/cultures, that there was no objective morality beyond "do not kill". Everything else I've decided is personally right, not generally so. What do you disagree with, exactly? I look forward to hearing from you.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Quote:

I've come to the conclusion that, since morality is socially transmitted, and would thus vary across societies/cultures, that there was no objective morality beyond "do not kill".

Are you saying you hold that "do not kill" is a moral absolute?

0 Replies

It's not a moral absolute because noone knows what that means. The prohibition against murder is universal, most likely, but homicide is not always murder. The moral codes of most societies make distinctions between who can be killed (and under what circumstances) and who cannot be killed. Self-defense, war, capital crimes, and strangers are go-aheads, fellow tribesmen and family are generally not.

0 Replies

if it is truly important to you, the blasphemy is in not trying.

......but if get folks drunk you can get them to agree with you on most anything. i know this, its how i met my wife.

0 Replies

You may be right about the open-minded thing, but I'm just pointing out that it is complicated, to me anyways.

What is morality? If it is what one perceives of what is right and wrong, then it does differ between people, and that is because someone's understanding can be mistaken partially or fully on some things. It is, in my opinion, the "exception" argument that causes the main difference between a group of people and even between individuals.

What I mean is, for example, slavery contains an exception. Slaves are treated as if they are not humans. What if I were to ask the slave owner that he would be forced to work for me against his will. He or she would of course protest, feeling that he or she has been wronged. Now why would the slave owner enslaved people knowing how wrong it would be? It's because he or she is ignoring it or is unaware of it. Thus the exception fallacy Laughing

Laughing

is applied by the slave owner. It is, most likely a problem of selfishness that is at the root of this ignorance.

I believe that selfishness is self-defeating. :wink: I also believe that morality simply means right and wrong in an objective sense.

Yeah my views are maybe weird, but that's what I think is true. Cheers. Very Happy

Very Happy

0 Replies

changing people or changing yourself?
Even though I am new I have some thoughts on this. Are we really trying to change people's minds by debating our philosophy here? Or are we really just trying to understand our own? I think that through communication we better know ourselves. It is a constant learning process for us. Our belief systems are constantly forming. They can't stagnate, or at least they shouldn't! I have always thought of myself as a teacher and have always felt that it would be nice to help nudge people in the right direction but, you know, there is no "right" direction and each person has his own path. I do believe however that we touch the lives of others, sometimes in a profound way, so I put myself and my ideas out there anyway.

0 Replies

Right on, Keenu, and welcome to A2K. A clear and balanced mind like yours is appreciated.
We are here, I do believe, more to make our own thoughts and feelings explicit to ourselves than to change the minds of others. When others disagree with us--and we wish to answer them--it gives us the opportunity to sharpen our own opinions, to refine them, as it were. But rarely, if ever, do we significantly change our minds (or those of others).

0 Replies

Kuvasz, pass the beer down the line , will ya? :wink:

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Kuvasz, pass the beer down the line , will ya? :wink:

only if you sing along with me.......

in the key of Life.......

all together now.........

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

.......

<burp>

0 Replies

Ray said:

Quote:

What is morality? If it is what one perceives of what is right and wrong, then it does differ between people, and that is because someone's understanding can be mistaken partially or fully on some things. It is, in my opinion, the "exception" argument that causes the main difference between a group of people and even between individuals.

I am somewhat confused, actually. What else could you define morality as except "what one perceives as right and wrong"? Could you clarify what you're arguing? Thanks.

twyvel/JLNobody: What I'm saying is I've decided to place "Do not harm another" as the fundamental building block of morality, since there's nothing more socially disruptive than causing harm to one of its citizens. I suppose I hold the tenet that one should do what's best for the individual and the group as a whole(i.e., don't do something that harms the group unless not doing it would harm you), and I base that on the "Golden Rule". As for the "homicide is not murder" clause; I honestly can't say where I stand on that. I suppose if the person has committed a true atrocity, then it's best to eliminate them from society, but lesser crimes should be met with counseling and rehabilitation. What constitutes an "atrocity" is, of course, completely subjective, and therein lies the problem that brings us back to moral relativism. :wink:

0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho

Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish

can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway

Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas

Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus

Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus

In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98

Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple

Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

Forums
» Can we ever change anything?

1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:05:11

▲ ▼