 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
I was trained pretty intensely in critical theory, and have since been practising and growing on that. At the end of the formal course, my teacher said to us that we were among "a dying breed", accompanying the death of philosophical post-modernism, another victim of 9/11 no doubt.
I suppose I'm talking more of the Frankfurt school, Horkheimer et al, logical analysis of arguments is good. Basically means any argument should be entirely logical and no appeal to emotions as a premise, though a premise based upon other emotions holds more weight but in turn makes a refutation more damaging as one can logically attack that emotion. For example, consider "Saddam is an evil bastard", and "America's pride has been hurt".
Both are emotional arguments, yet the latter holds more weight until someone critiques the notion of patriotism and we find it to be an emotional state that holds little water. However, we live in days when this notion of logic down to the individual is dying as we get caught up in emotive, "easy" arguments. If I attack the notion of patriotism in the US or UK, as an intellectual I won't be taken seriously, for no real reason except emotional abhorrence at my views, instead of a logical flaw therein. Such is my experience already and I'm not even 19 yet!! I personally don't like it. I'd rather be convinced of a certain view in a critical debate, rather than an advertising campaign. I'd rather use my brain than hormones in conceptual and political matters.
I know that critical thinking tends to take a dive when the world becomes more conservative, and we live in such days. Anyone else concur?
What do we think?
N.B.: I belong to the camps of emotivism and moral subjectivism (I'm working on my own form of relativism that seems to fit here), so I do know that emotions play a part in our debates. I know that you can take someones logic back to their own individual emotional disposition, but there the debate becomes a matter of yay and nay, or a comparison of individual philosophies as a product of our state of mind. Needless to say, rationally speaking we all have a lot in common to the point that we reach a consensus of premises such that there is usually no need to break a debate down into our states of mind. As a non-cognitivist, I suppose I'm inclined to say that a critical debate becomes something of a comparison of views, as opposed to a moral realist or an absolutist but never mind about this.
Discuss the death of critical theory in all its forms, not merely what I'm talking about  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
Don´t Panic!
I don´t believe we see the death of the critical theory. 
However, I think you tend to rationalyze a bit too much. We are not purely logical beings, our emotional side will always play a certain role.
Ok, you have a point in saying that logic and reason are probably better "tools" than pure emotions esp. in philosophical or political debates. But to imply (correct me if I´m wrong) that emotions are only kind of useless or unimportant is IMO wrong. At the end of the enlightment period, many people thought that "reason" had become more a fetish or a symbol of coldheartedness, which lead consequently to the romantic movement. Similarly I think today any debate cannot simply ignore emotions that actually exist on a broader scale. If most of the Americans feel indeed hurt by 9/11, it is nonsense to ignore that. Ignoring those emotions will rather lead to a simplified view than to more understanding of what´s going on. This is a question of how you want to debate something - if those who debate with you get the impression that you think their (really existing) emotions are just nonsense, you have the best chances that nobody wants to hear your arguments. You can argue a thousand times that logic is better than emotions, but people can´t simply switch off their emotions. If you however are able to respect those emotions whithout quitting to voice criticism I assume your chances are a lot better in such debates...
To your examples:
A sentence like "Saddam´s an evil bastard" maybe emotionally inspired, but that doesn´t say the sentence is wrong. What´s the "reasonable" alternative - "he is a dictator who does not respect human rights?" I see not sooo big differences there to the first statement.
The problem is how those statements are used, not IMO that they are used. If one has nothing else than pure emotions to justify an action I´d get suspicious too. And you´re of course right that it´s pathetic to try to stop intelligent criticism via emotional statements that are only made to attack the moral POV of the critic. But that has always taken place, not only since 9/11.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
and what comes after post-modernism?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
However, I think you tend to rationalyze a bit too much. We are not purely logical beings, our emotional side will always play a certain role.
|
I accounted for that in my original post. As an emotivist, I specifically state that our emotional dispositions are the basis for our arguments, and, to paraphrase Nietzsche, all we do when we philosophise is communicate our own state of mind (damn I'm ****ed up). I am saying that while this is true, emotions to the best of our capabilities should be removed from debates, as an emotional argument is inherently weaker than a logical one, though of course what they are arguing is of course right (I am also a relativist ), but that is irrelevant.
Needless to say, you won't eliminate emotions, indeed they have a secondary role in terms of convincing and advertising in an argument in terms of dynamic language, but the primary role of a debate is occupied solely by logic, and emotions present invariably creates a weakness. A logical argument is simply better in that context.
quote:
A sentence like "Saddam´s an evil bastard" maybe emotionally inspired, but that doesn´t say the sentence is wrong. What´s the "reasonable" alternative - "he is a dictator who does not respect human rights?" I see not sooo big differences there to the first statement.
|
My original statement includes the word "evil" which I take to mean the presence of an emotion, as few rational people would claim evil to exist in its absolute definition.
quote:
the speaker is usually making naked emotional/base logical appeals to the lowest common denominator, or aiming for a target audience. Don't look for examples of critical theory here.
|
Hence the democracy fallacy 
quote:
Despite what we like to think there are plenty of smart, well-adjusted conservatives and your that line itself belies any critical thought on your part.
|
I was referring there to the "masses". Smart well-adjusted conservatives and smart well adjusted liberals will keep their views no matter what, but the non-politically aligned are more liable to conservative views in times like these, jumping to patriotism for example, and critical reasoning, and that use upon them tends to suffer. I didn't think I needed any argument there, my views and arguments on this matter are well known . Intellectuals are more likely to be liberals, but for the few that are conservative, their views and their position will not change.
quote:
Maybe you ought to try living a little longer first before deciding you are intellectually superior to everyone else?
|
WTF?? I'm not intellectually superior, whats wrong with my views. The only thing I'm superior at is air guitar!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
|
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
My original statement includes the word "evil" which I take to mean the presence of an emotion, as few rational people would claim evil to exist in its absolute definition. |
The use of "evil" doesn´t indicate emotion per se, it is a moral judgement. I could say it is justified to call him evil due to his actions, hence the argument is not emotional. I don´t understand the big difference here between using "evil" in this sense, or saying he´s responsible for mass killings due to his actions.
Edit: you could say that the use of "evil" maybe appeals more on the emotions of an audience, however, if you can justify the use of this word in a reasonable way it is still not an emotional argument as such.
Last edited by BeBro on 15-01-2004 at 02:27
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2004 22:28
|