4 ms·

And, of course, you happen to be one of them no doubt :) The classic internet philosopher’s lament: everyone else is irrational, inconsistent, and incapable of

And, of course, you happen to be one of them no doubt :) The classic internet philosopher’s lament: everyone else is irrational, inconsistent, and incapable of coherent thought—except, of course, the enlightened commentator making the claim. The irony is that this kind of sweeping generalization is itself an incoherent mess, built on vague cynicism rather than any serious engagement with human reasoning. If you actually believe that consistency and coherence are so rare, what exactly do you think you’re demonstrating here? Because from where I’m sitting, it looks less like deep insight and more like self-important nihilism masquerading as wisdom.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago
You’re free to read all my writings and evaluate for yourself
- pinoy420 2y ago
  > Iraq war veteran No thanks. Not really interested in the views of a murderer.
igravious 2y ago
> The classic internet philosopher’s lament: everyone else is irrational, inconsistent, and incapable of coherent thought—except, of course, the enlightened commentator making the claim. But that wasn't the claim. @AndrewKemendo said "it’s an infinitely small set of people who can accurately describe their reasoning - even fewer have consistent reasoning - fewer still have coherence between beliefs" So he didn't say that everyone else is irrational, he said that very few can accurately describe their reasoning. And I think this is true. Very few take the time to introspect. Fewer still will do so to the point that they are consistent in their thinking. And fewer still will will analyze their values and beliefs and get them to square up with each other. Their is nothing controversial here. It's demonstratively true, all one has to do is listen to people carefully and probe them to motivate their reasoning every now and again. > The irony is that this kind of sweeping generalization is itself an incoherent mess, built on vague cynicism rather than any serious engagement with human reasoning. I reject that it's a "sweeping generalization" – I assert that most if not all people who spend enough time carefully introspecting and observing others necessarily must come to this conclusion. What about the claim is an "incoherent mess"? Clearly this is a personal peeve of yours because your response is emotional and doesn't refute the claim in any decent way. > If you actually believe that consistency and coherence are so rare, what exactly do you think you’re demonstrating here? That's a logical fallacy. > Because from where I’m sitting, it looks less like deep insight and more like self-important nihilism masquerading as wisdom. Twaddle. Emotional twaddle.
- darkerside 2y ago
  Have you considered that it isn't that these people don't understand or can't express their motivations, beliefs, and values, but rather that they feel zero need to justify them to you or anyone else who questions them with the sole intent of proving themselves correct?
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Generally the questioning comes after they’ve already insisted on expressing their values.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

You’re free to read all my writings and evaluate for yourself

pinoy420 2y ago
> Iraq war veteran No thanks. Not really interested in the views of a murderer.

igravious 2y ago

> The classic internet philosopher’s lament: everyone else is irrational, inconsistent, and incapable of coherent thought—except, of course, the enlightened commentator making the claim. But that wasn't the claim. @AndrewKemendo said "it’s an infinitely small set of people who can accurately describe their reasoning - even fewer have consistent reasoning - fewer still have coherence between beliefs" So he didn't say that everyone else is irrational, he said that very few can accurately describe their reasoning. And I think this is true. Very few take the time to introspect. Fewer still will do so to the point that they are consistent in their thinking. And fewer still will will analyze their values and beliefs and get them to square up with each other. Their is nothing controversial here. It's demonstratively true, all one has to do is listen to people carefully and probe them to motivate their reasoning every now and again. > The irony is that this kind of sweeping generalization is itself an incoherent mess, built on vague cynicism rather than any serious engagement with human reasoning. I reject that it's a "sweeping generalization" – I assert that most if not all people who spend enough time carefully introspecting and observing others necessarily must come to this conclusion. What about the claim is an "incoherent mess"? Clearly this is a personal peeve of yours because your response is emotional and doesn't refute the claim in any decent way. > If you actually believe that consistency and coherence are so rare, what exactly do you think you’re demonstrating here? That's a logical fallacy. > Because from where I’m sitting, it looks less like deep insight and more like self-important nihilism masquerading as wisdom. Twaddle. Emotional twaddle.

darkerside 2y ago
Have you considered that it isn't that these people don't understand or can't express their motivations, beliefs, and values, but rather that they feel zero need to justify them to you or anyone else who questions them with the sole intent of proving themselves correct?
- throwup238 2y ago
  Generally the questioning comes after they’ve already insisted on expressing their values.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]