How logic is weaponized and ignorant.

[Danioover9000]

   A great example of logic appealing and bias for objectivity and definitions:

   No, Art is both subjectivity and objectivity, so by extension music is both subjectivity and objectivity, so by extent all the sub categories within ART, and within MUSIC, for instance 'Rap Music' is BOTH OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE!! It's just such a 

   I want to argue/debate this guy so badly that I can taste the flavors of the air around me. It's so annoying most people have this implicit appealing to logos, never mind ethos and pathos but logos, thinking the universality of logos prevails against all things.

[Danioover9000]

   Main problems with this clip is that Warren Smith apparently forgets that even if he's arguing/debating rap music with this musician, to use his pedantic logic bias, to be technically correct and good faith in arguing he should also talking about other genres of rap music like Mumble rap, Trap beats, UK Grime/UK Drill, R&B rap, emo rap, Eminem style of rapping, and so many other forms of rap that  some have to be accounted for and included into the discussion/debate. Also it's not fair to just ignore the other subcategories, but also to be aware that both arguers here are arguing over a subcategory, rap music, which is within music that also has 1,000s of other music categories besides rap music. Also this is within the biggest category of them all, ART, which is subjective per cultural standards. IMO both haven't defined what is art, and what is subjectivity and what is objectivity, which resulted in this lack luster arguing over almost NOTHING!

[zazen]

Logic and intellect can bring smarts but not wisdom. To have a accurate map of reality and human nature requires humility and courage to face truths that may unsettle us. A mighty intellect can enlarge the ego which will then use the intellect to strengthen any delusions it may have and further rationalise to shield us from staring into reality.

Truth requires us to pursue perceived terrifying insights to their conclusions, that in the end may not be as terrifying if only we could get to them. Maybe this is where the warrior spirit of stage red needs to be integrated - the virtue of bravery and courage. Without courage or humility, otherwise intellectual heavy weights are not strong enough to emotionally/spiritually handle their own intellects. They will instead build more elaborate systems of thought that are tightly self-consistent and logical in their own closed loop of delusion. Within their bubble of logic it all maps together cohesively, but none of it survives first contact with reality which it is divorced from.

While they exhibit logical thinking (a sign of intellect), the way they apply that logic is flawed and inaccurate, leading to foolish outcomes (signalling lack of wisdom). Cowardly self-delusion dressed up in fancy intellectual lingerie is still just cowardly self-delusion.

 

*Regarding UK rap in particular, Skepta and Dave are the heavyweights - def check them out.

Edited April 2 by zazen

[Danioover9000]

   Another delusional take by Warren, this guy's just the epitome of delusional determinists, logicians, rationalists and so on:

   Oh, and clips Contrapoint's points out of context. Always lovely when you're point's out of context, nothing deluded here!

[Danioover9000]

@zazen

On 2024-04-02 at 7:49 PM, zazen said:

Logic and intellect can bring smarts but not wisdom. To have a accurate map of reality and human nature requires humility and courage to face truths that may unsettle us. A mighty intellect can enlarge the ego which will then use the intellect to strengthen any delusions it may have and further rationalise to shield us from staring into reality.

Truth requires us to pursue perceived terrifying insights to their conclusions, that in the end may not be as terrifying if only we could get to them. Maybe this is where the warrior spirit of stage red needs to be integrated - the virtue of bravery and courage. Without courage or humility, otherwise intellectual heavy weights are not strong enough to emotionally/spiritually handle their own intellects. They will instead build more elaborate systems of thought that are tightly self-consistent and logical in their own closed loop of delusion. Within their bubble of logic it all maps together cohesively, but none of it survives first contact with reality which it is divorced from.

While they exhibit logical thinking (a sign of intellect), the way they apply that logic is flawed and inaccurate, leading to foolish outcomes (signalling lack of wisdom). Cowardly self-delusion dressed up in fancy intellectual lingerie is still just cowardly self-delusion.

 

*Regarding UK rap in particular, Skepta and Dave are the heavyweights - def check them out.

   True! Sometimes some people are so strongly identified with logic they forget what wisdom is or how important intuition/emotions are with logic, thinking logic exists in a special privileged vacuum in existence!😂 These types are like clothes hangers, they so focused on the hook part, thinking the hook is all there is but forget the bar it hangs from, the attachments at the ends to the walls within the closet, and all those other parts are why hangers are as important as they are.

[Razard86]

People can only know what they have been exposed too and what they are open to explore.

Also there is a logic to subjectivity and there is a logic to art. Logic is not just number crunching, it is also intuitive. Many people who create art can't explain it because they don't study their mind and how it works.

Life is subjective but it is also objective. The objectivity is one with the subjectivity. You need to study your patterns of subjectivity to discover your objectivity and vice versa.

Edited April 18 by Razard86

[Ulax]

Imo, all appeals to logic/ rationality are ignorant. Based on the epistemic regress argument, in a sense, no argument is any less or more justified than any other. 

[zurew]

47 minutes ago, Ulax said:

Imo, all appeals to logic/ rationality are ignorant. Based on the epistemic regress argument, in a sense, no argument is any less or more justified than any other.

If you accept that argument then it deletes itself, because whats the justification for the epistemic regress argument? ( you are still inside the regress problem) + there are responses to that argument ie coherentism and foundationalism.

 

[Ulax]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

If you accept that argument then it deletes itself, because whats the justification for the epistemic regress argument? ( you are still inside the regress problem) + there are responses to that argument ie coherentism and foundationalism.

 

@zurew yeah lol. I lol because I debated this with a former housemate for like a year on the same points.

Its hard to argue on the topic because the entire idea of what is a good argument is what is up for debate. 

How can we judge whether the epistemic regress argument is better than coherentism or foundationalism arguments, when the whole debate is about how to judge an argument. 

Edited April 18 by Ulax

[Applegarden8]

This thread reminds me of people like Alex Jones and Hasan Piker. They are garbage grifters.

[Danioover9000]

   Good coverage about that podcast here:

 

 

I also did a body language analysis on Destiny:

 

   Sometimes bad faith tactics are necessary, especially when dealing with a hubris, evil and ignorant fool like Destiny who has mind slayed most of his audience in believing he's legitimate.

[Danioover9000]

   Good take by Hasan, yes debate/arguing is not for TRUTH,  but for rhetoric and stage performance, it's mind slaying other egos to join your ideology, that's mostly it.

 

Edited April 19 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

   This is a good example of how a comedian handles 2 arguers:

 

[Razard86]

On 4/18/2024 at 5:45 PM, Ulax said:

@zurew yeah lol. I lol because I debated this with a former housemate for like a year on the same points.

Its hard to argue on the topic because the entire idea of what is a good argument is what is up for debate. 

How can we judge whether the epistemic regress argument is better than coherentism or foundationalism arguments, when the whole debate is about how to judge an argument. 

You are confusing the relative with the Absolute. The Absolute everything is equal, on the relative everything isn't equal. You drinking water v.s. poison wouldn't be equal on the relative. And eating v.s. not eating isn't equal on the relative.

You discover true through honesty and careful investigation of what is. The honesty is to admit the bias that you are using in the argument and how it influences perception, and you investigate to discover how something actually works, not allowing your personal biases to influence discovering that outcome and then you arrive at the truth. The only reason the truth is hard for humans is because 99.9 percent of humans are intellectually dishonest on some level eventually and thus corrupt the discussion. People are too locked into defending their identity and play mind games to avoid dealing with their shadow. 

Shadow work and emotional intelligence is the most important work in understanding relative truth. Relative truth is infinite and there are higher order truths and lower order truths within the relative domain. The focus should be on learning how to recognize both and how they intermingle with each other.

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

11 hours ago, Razard86 said:

You are confusing the relative with the Absolute. The Absolute everything is equal, on the relative everything isn't equal. You drinking water v.s. poison wouldn't be equal on the relative. And eating v.s. not eating isn't equal on the relative.

You discover true through honesty and careful investigation of what is. The honesty is to admit the bias that you are using in the argument and how it influences perception, and you investigate to discover how something actually works, not allowing your personal biases to influence discovering that outcome and then you arrive at the truth. The only reason the truth is hard for humans is because 99.9 percent of humans are intellectually dishonest on some level eventually and thus corrupt the discussion. People are too locked into defending their identity and play mind games to avoid dealing with their shadow. 

Shadow work and emotional intelligence is the most important work in understanding relative truth. Relative truth is infinite and there are higher order truths and lower order truths within the relative domain. The focus should be on learning how to recognize both and how they intermingle with each other.

   So what's a genius, and can everyone be a genius?

[Danioover9000]

   Great example of the good and bad of debating: