3 ms·
> I figured as much. It's hard to believe you're not at the center of the universe. Funnily enough that's what you're arguing - there is no truth, all knowledg
by Timon3 3y ago
> I figured as much. It's hard to believe you're not at the center of the universe.
Funnily enough that's what you're arguing - there is no truth, all knowledge is indoctrination, the only important thing is what you believe. I think that there is knowledge beyond humanity, and we are able to explore and discover more and more through scientific processes. We're not at the center, we're outside looking in.
> You have to indoctrinate someone with the doctrine that "the truth" as the output of those tools. The problem you're having is you refuse to acknowledge that, and arbitrarily redefine certain kinds of indoctrination as not-indoctrination.
No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion", which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway!
> It's probably because you need to feel that indoctrination is something that only the other guys do, because you've labeled indoctrination as bad thing done by baddies, and think of yourself as a goodie.
Is your moral framework really this shallow? I simply acknowledge that I am fallible, and most of my knowledge is wrong. So instead of focussing on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge. But obviously there is no way someone else is doing something better than you! After all, you're at the center of the universe. You know how everything works, and what all things are. So of course you know there can't be any difference between what I do and what you do.
> I obviously don't. I have by own viewpoint that I prioritize over others because it's mine. I just don't lie to myself pretend that preference has a faux "objectivity."
You should really, really look into epistemology. There is a lot more to this world than "I thought of it, so it's what I think" - people have spent a lot of time thinking about how knowledge works, how you can gain it, and how you can differentiate truth from untruth. It seems you've either read a lot and rejected all of it, or you haven't read anything - in both cases you should give it another go, there might be interesting thoughts in there for you which you didn't come up with yourself!
- tivert 3y ago> No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. Another term for those? Doctrine. > You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion" That's not a redefinition, btw. Look it up. > which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway! You seem to be overreacting. > So instead of focussing [sic] on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge. That's an artificial distinction, which is really the only point I've been trying to communicate throughout this whole discussion. What you call "the ability to gain knowledge" is still a collection of "knowledge and opinions," but perhaps obscured and not always clearly labeled as such. Obscuring doctrine like that is actually characteristic of deep and thorough indoctrination. Your doctrine isn't privileged such that training someone in it is somehow not indoctrination or less so than training other doctrines. > You should really, really look into epistemology. Which one?
- Timon3 3y agoSee, the problem is that with something like: > Another term for those? Doctrine. you show that there is literally no sense in attempting to convince you. You divide everything into black and white, where seemingly any kind of knowledge is automatically doctrine. If I bring up ways to analyze how we attain knowledge and how we can make sure knowledge follows "facts" in a philosophical sense, you just declare that to be doctrine too. You're not responding to any arguments or thoughts beyond automatically declaring them doctrine. > That's not a redefinition, btw. Look it up. Sure, let's do it! Cambridge says: "the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question" Dictionary.com says: "the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view" So your definition is completely different from the first (since I mentioned critical examination), and it falls under one specific part of the second (but fails the others completely). So sure, if you completely ignore the other - more commonly known - definition, you are technically correct. If you accept the word as it is commonly used (we don't want to put you at the center of the universe, do we?) suddenly your rants are pretty baseless.