4 ms·

I do not refuse to consider the analogy, after reading the article and all the comments here, i didn't find any logical ground for the analogy. Animistic relig

by chr1 7y ago

I do not refuse to consider the analogy, after reading the article and all the comments here, i didn't find any logical ground for the analogy. Animistic religions believing that river has a spirit, or saying that river represents the group of people who live nearby (but who obviously have conflicting interesting) do not sound convincing to me. If you have any better arguments for the validity of the analogy, i'd be happy to hear them.

wpietri 7y ago
Analogies don't really have logical validity. They are a way of priming intuition. I agree it doesn't sound convincing to you; I'm just saying that isn't indicative of anything more than your reaction.
- chr1 7y ago
  I am saying that any person who would use logic to analyze the proposed analogy and its consequences would see that it is absurd, independently from feelings and intuition. A normal reply to this would be a chain of arguments showing that in some case the analogy is giving a useful result. Are you saying that logic is just "my reaction", and it is not any more valid than feelings?
  - wpietri 7y ago
    I have already said I think it's an adequate analogy. Others clearly have too. Your belief that your personal thoughts are universal and infallible is your belief. It's not one I found persuasive at the beginning, and less so the more you insist on it.
    - chr1 7y ago
      You said that you think it is adequate, but you didn't say why you think that. I do not think that my personal, or anyone else's thoughts are universal or infallible, but i think it is possible to find common understanding using logic. > It's not one I found persuasive at the beginning, and less so the more you insist on it I didn't add anything to my initial argument to make it more persuasive, i merely asked you to tell your arguments in favor of the analogy, as i hoped you may have something more interesting to say than "your thoughts are your thoughts and my thoughts are mine" which is a tautological truth.

by chr1 7y ago

wpietri 7y ago

Analogies don't really have logical validity. They are a way of priming intuition. I agree it doesn't sound convincing to you; I'm just saying that isn't indicative of anything more than your reaction.

chr1 7y ago
I am saying that any person who would use logic to analyze the proposed analogy and its consequences would see that it is absurd, independently from feelings and intuition. A normal reply to this would be a chain of arguments showing that in some case the analogy is giving a useful result. Are you saying that logic is just "my reaction", and it is not any more valid than feelings?
- wpietri 7y ago
  I have already said I think it's an adequate analogy. Others clearly have too. Your belief that your personal thoughts are universal and infallible is your belief. It's not one I found persuasive at the beginning, and less so the more you insist on it.
  - chr1 7y ago
    You said that you think it is adequate, but you didn't say why you think that. I do not think that my personal, or anyone else's thoughts are universal or infallible, but i think it is possible to find common understanding using logic. > It's not one I found persuasive at the beginning, and less so the more you insist on it I didn't add anything to my initial argument to make it more persuasive, i merely asked you to tell your arguments in favor of the analogy, as i hoped you may have something more interesting to say than "your thoughts are your thoughts and my thoughts are mine" which is a tautological truth.