This is actually why insulting people’s intelligence is generally just lazy and inaccurate, aside from any problematic aspect. Because many people who believe wrong things are actually quite intelligent, and they apply that intelligence quite cleverly to defending wrong positions. I would have hoped that someone like you, with all your pretenses of being an enlightened progressive, wouldn’t resort to attributing every disagreement to your opponents’ innate mental inferiority.
For example, the reason you come to wrong conclusions like this has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence or any innate characteristic, it’s because you’re full of yourself. You don’t bother to understand people’s actual reasons for coming to the conclusions that they do. I suspect that I have a pretty decent read on you, actually - you’re probably rather sharp and grew up a big fish in a small intellectual pond, the people around you generally were wrong and uninformed, so there was little value in listening to them. I can recognize this psychological profile because I fit it myself. Eventually, you find a room that you’re no longer the smartest person in, and you either learn to listen or you burn out and avoid it (for me, I aced every test through high school and undergrad and then hit upper division physics and realized that I couldn’t just instantly grasp it like I could with other stuff and suddenly had to learn how to study with others). Because the thing is that actually good ideas and conclusions come from cooperative, collective effort, beyond what even the sharpest person in the world could come up with on their own - it’s why the peer-review process is such an essential part of science.
Like, have you ever considered the possibility that a disagreement might not stem from one side being deficient, misinformed, or developmentally impaired, but rather from people having different values, experiences, and priorities? Is it possible that you haven’t actually solved philosophy with objectively correct positions that a person would have to be brain damaged to disagree with? Can reasonable people ever disagree?
Of course I haven’t solved philosophy with objectively correct positions. There’s no such thing as objectivity. I believe that the idea of objectivity is a harmful one. All truth is subjective, and subjective truth is measured by good done and self-consistency. I’m interested in exploring the potential good to be done by criticising tankies’ inability to ethically reason without empathy.
Ah, of course. More fancy rhetoric to disguise your beliefs.
“Objective morality doesn’t exist and is harmful, however, anyone capable of ethically reasoning with empathy would always naturally arrive at these particular moral conclusions.”
and subjective truth is measured by good done and self-consistency.
“There is no objective truth, only subjective truth, which is measured by objective metrics, but this is totally different from objectivity, because vibes.”
What a load of bullshit. I’m not playing these games. You clearly believe that your political positions are objectively correct and that mine are objectively wrong, you’ve just contorted your conscious/stated positions to the point that you can’t say it in those terms.
Now, I will ask again, is it possible that you have not actually solved philosophy with objectively correct positions that a person would have to be brain damaged to disagree with? Or, to put in a way more amenable to your crap, “Do you think it’s possible to arrive at my positions without being brain damaged or mentally deficient?”
This is actually why insulting people’s intelligence is generally just lazy and inaccurate, aside from any problematic aspect. Because many people who believe wrong things are actually quite intelligent, and they apply that intelligence quite cleverly to defending wrong positions. I would have hoped that someone like you, with all your pretenses of being an enlightened progressive, wouldn’t resort to attributing every disagreement to your opponents’ innate mental inferiority.
For example, the reason you come to wrong conclusions like this has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence or any innate characteristic, it’s because you’re full of yourself. You don’t bother to understand people’s actual reasons for coming to the conclusions that they do. I suspect that I have a pretty decent read on you, actually - you’re probably rather sharp and grew up a big fish in a small intellectual pond, the people around you generally were wrong and uninformed, so there was little value in listening to them. I can recognize this psychological profile because I fit it myself. Eventually, you find a room that you’re no longer the smartest person in, and you either learn to listen or you burn out and avoid it (for me, I aced every test through high school and undergrad and then hit upper division physics and realized that I couldn’t just instantly grasp it like I could with other stuff and suddenly had to learn how to study with others). Because the thing is that actually good ideas and conclusions come from cooperative, collective effort, beyond what even the sharpest person in the world could come up with on their own - it’s why the peer-review process is such an essential part of science.
Like, have you ever considered the possibility that a disagreement might not stem from one side being deficient, misinformed, or developmentally impaired, but rather from people having different values, experiences, and priorities? Is it possible that you haven’t actually solved philosophy with objectively correct positions that a person would have to be brain damaged to disagree with? Can reasonable people ever disagree?
Of course I haven’t solved philosophy with objectively correct positions. There’s no such thing as objectivity. I believe that the idea of objectivity is a harmful one. All truth is subjective, and subjective truth is measured by good done and self-consistency. I’m interested in exploring the potential good to be done by criticising tankies’ inability to ethically reason without empathy.
Ah, of course. More fancy rhetoric to disguise your beliefs.
“Objective morality doesn’t exist and is harmful, however, anyone capable of ethically reasoning with empathy would always naturally arrive at these particular moral conclusions.”
“There is no objective truth, only subjective truth, which is measured by objective metrics, but this is totally different from objectivity, because vibes.”
What a load of bullshit. I’m not playing these games. You clearly believe that your political positions are objectively correct and that mine are objectively wrong, you’ve just contorted your conscious/stated positions to the point that you can’t say it in those terms.
Now, I will ask again, is it possible that you have not actually solved philosophy with objectively correct positions that a person would have to be brain damaged to disagree with? Or, to put in a way more amenable to your crap, “Do you think it’s possible to arrive at my positions without being brain damaged or mentally deficient?”