3 ms·
The philosopher Charles Taylor has an idea that because modern societies aim to be open to all religious/ethical ideas, it results in the atrophying of debating
by keiferski 2y ago
The philosopher Charles Taylor has an idea that because modern societies aim to be open to all religious/ethical ideas, it results in the atrophying of debating skills and the ability to intelligently critique things. This openness doesn’t result in a free exchange of complex formed opinions, resulting instead in a kind of formless relativism where people have a feeling that they disagree with something but lack the ability to do so.
In a very related way, I feel like the same thing has happened with regards to the focus on individualism and the individual identity, at the expense of group identity. People have become so obsessed with individualism that they forget how humans are still, additionally, a social species.
This results in the ignoring of how group social dynamics work, which means that it’s much easier for bad group behaviors to take root - no one thinks they’re important or even exist at all.
In other words, when we pretend that something doesn’t exist - but it continues to exist - we lose the ability to engage with it intelligently.
- hackit2 2y agoI take the different stance the push to individualism has postponed apathy of Western society as a whole. Look at societies that are still highly nationalistic or collectivism they're either in-decline or being exploited by the West. The power of individualism is it allows society to exploit individuals who're at the end of the population bell curve.
- keiferski 2y agoI don’t think individualism is entirely bad or even bad at all - the issue is the exclusive focus on it, as it leaves you unable to deal with the group social phenomena that will continue to exist regardless. And in the reverse way, societies that are too group-focused find themselves unable to deal with the phenomenon of individuals- see the USSR, for example. IMO the societies doing the best globally have a solid balance between individual and group identity.
- hackit2 2y agoI agree how-ever you cannot be a individual within a collective how-ever a individualistic society allows people to voluntarily choose to balkanize along ethnic or cultural tribes. Which is your inherit statutory right as a individual.
- throwaway22032 2y agoI agree with this. It may just be that I've shifted social circles as I've aged, or hell even that I've become cranky, but I've noticed a huge decrease in debating ability over the past 20 years or so. I can't quite put my finger on it but I guess it feels as if labels, black and white thinking, and absurd levels of tolerance have proliferated as mind killing tools.
- hackit2 2y agoYou must of never gone to University because in modern academic debating you have no intentions of conceding your position, you only do when it strengthen your argument, not when it weakens it. I think it is kind of antithetical to debating but it isn't about the truth it is about convincing the audience that your a more credible by presenting a more compelling argument to support your position.
- throwaway22032 2y agoI have a degree. The point I am making is not that people are unwilling to concede, I don't see much change in that, but that debate itself rarely happens. It's far more common in my experience for someone to attempt to shut down debate with a label like racist or woke, or draw a connection to a political philosophy in an attempt to discredit, rather than actually try to give valid reasons for why I should adopt their position. Back in University I found that to be far less common. Looking from the outside in it seems as if nowadays campuses have become much more reactionary.
- hackit2 2y agoI think your understanding of what the objective of an Academic debate is wrong. What you're referring too isn't a debate it is the Socratic method. The purpose of the Socratic method is to reach a (mutual) understanding and intellectual discovery. The purpose a debate is to persuade and win the argument. They differ significantly in their objectives, methodologies, and atmospheres.
- hxriv 2y ago[flagged]