4 ms·
Have you ever considered the possibility that sense is not objective? If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that masks didn't work. If you need reminding
by hogFeast 5y ago
Have you ever considered the possibility that sense is not objective?
If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that masks didn't work. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a lab leak was impossible. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a vaccine wouldn't come for years. On and on.
Sense is inherently subjective. You are subject to the same flaws of logic and reasoning as anyone else. People believe that everyone else is an irrational fool, and their view is correct (and yes, this is the only thing that has changed recently...as people have become more exposed to people who aren't like them, they have retreated into their shell).
Btw, you should also consider whether your own view here has any "sense". Part of living in a society with other people is the right to disagree with others (isn't it odd that you use this right when considering the views of others but don't believe they have the same right? That their views just make no sense and can be ignored...irony).
It is unfortunate that fewer and fewer people today understand the principles on which their freedom is built.
- epgui 5y agoThe way I used the word "sense" was in relation to "rationality" and not "feelings". With that definition of "sense", it can certainly be said to be objective.
- hogFeast 5y agoIt isn't. Thinking that it is objective is an example of non-rational thinking.
- epgui 5y agoThis disagreement results from your inability to accept a definition to work from (ie.: the premise).
- hogFeast 5y agoI gave you a definition (once again, you are starting from the viewpoint that my view is invalid because I refuse a definition...a pattern is appearing). The actual epistemic logic is more complex but, for the purposes of this discussion, the point is that you can define these things as things that reasonable people can disagree about because: there is no clear evidence, and people will weigh that evidence differently. It makes no sense to say that these things should be removed from the internet because they are "irrational"...Galileo was regarded as "irrational" too, the nature of new information is that it breaks down existing systems of thought. To be clear too, believing in rational universalism is an example of irrational thinking. No "rationalist" philosopher ever believed in universalism. Theories like logical positivism were explicitly non-universal in regarding some things as unknowable. The only real application of universalism has, typically, been in German fascist political philosophy with ideas like the Volk...it is in an inherently political/cultural concept...again, the irony of this is a bit much but the precise reason why these theories exist is because they are people who think that we just need to shut discussion down.