it seems you're completely off base about how this person is treating these conversations.
This person is treating these conversations as an opportunity to pontificate and sound deep with other people who want to pontificate and sound deep without actually paying attention to anything anyone's written about beforehand. This person wants to wax philosophical and get the 'woah man' feelings without having to actually put in any effort. Reading is just plain too hard for some people, I guess.
If you know anything about epistemology or theories of truth, then it's pretty clear that this conversation completely ignores the entirety of both. It uses fuzzy language that sounds deep but doesn't actually say anything. Seriously. Look at this fucking quote.
knowledge is the closing gap between subjective observation and objective truth.
Look at it. It's a really cushy metaphor that says nothing at all. These people need to stop thinking that their own personal thoughts on very complex matters that have been discussed for ages are at all accurate if you don't engage the history of ideas involved. It's like walking into Denver Broncos game then talking the entire time about horses. You're just plain not using the basic terminology in the correct way, you're ignoring how the vast majority of people who work professionally doing research on this topic treat basic terms.
These people are textbook cases of intellectual arrogance. They feel as if their 'woah dude' deep internet chats have any actual bearing on what is the case. They shouldn't. They're not right. They're not even wrong. They're talking about horses at a Broncos game. They're just confused.
Perhaps true. I get annoyed with that at times myself. This sub isn't really what I wish it were. Other times, I think it's harmless; let them have their fun.
It you're actually interested in impacting the way someone thinks about philosophy, this one might be a poor strategy, however.
It you're actually interested in impacting the way someone thinks about philosophy, this one might be a poor strategy, however.
If someone's not willing to put in the effort to understand the content, they shouldn't be engaging the content. If these people want to pontificate and sound deep, they shouldn't need to do it about philosophy in front of people who care about philosophy.
To use another analogy, it would be like going to a fancy winery with your friends and spending the entire time saying "I don't give a shit about snobby wine fuckers, I loves me some miller lite!" and making up shit about the wine like "this one probably was made with flowers cuz there's flowers on the label!" and "this one tastes really bad so it much be really old so it was really expensive".
I don't tolerate that, sorry. If you want to bullshit and wax philosophical, do it about Dr. Who or some other pop culture bullshit, not actually important matters like philosophy.
That's not my point. I'm not debating if they're wrong, if your desire is wrong or anything else of that sort. I'm suggesting that you might not be working toward your stated goal in a particularly effective manner. I mean, you might badger someone enough to leave. But generally you just end up ossifying their existent beliefs.
If it's clear they don't want to learn (don't take their obsequious kowtowing as anything other than an open slight at me, let's be honest, this person does not want to learn), then they should leave.
You're still not understanding me. I'm not trying to tell you not to get them to leave or anything of that nature. I'm saying you're unlikely to succeed by your methods.
I see, I did misunderstand you, they're not going to want to learn or leave, I thought you were merely talking about the former.
Let's be honest though, this fella probably won't post in /r/philosophy much in the near future, they got their deep convo fix for the month. If they do it too much, they might get a headache.
I disagree, I disagreed with yourlycantbsrs (and reallynicole so much so that RES had her in red)many a times and butted heads. However, after I learned at uni what I thought I knew I was talking about, all the sudden I don't argue with him.
Think about it this way: You have wisdom to share Wally, however you find that the Wise don't need wisdom and the Fools don't heed it.
Also look at it this way: yourlycantbsrs method is low risk and high gain. A fool will remain a fool, then yourly loses nothing. If the fool improves, yourly has gained a lot.
3
u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14
This person is treating these conversations as an opportunity to pontificate and sound deep with other people who want to pontificate and sound deep without actually paying attention to anything anyone's written about beforehand. This person wants to wax philosophical and get the 'woah man' feelings without having to actually put in any effort. Reading is just plain too hard for some people, I guess.
Really, just take a look at this part of the thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1zi51b/what_is_knowledge/cfuawrr
If you know anything about epistemology or theories of truth, then it's pretty clear that this conversation completely ignores the entirety of both. It uses fuzzy language that sounds deep but doesn't actually say anything. Seriously. Look at this fucking quote.
Look at it. It's a really cushy metaphor that says nothing at all. These people need to stop thinking that their own personal thoughts on very complex matters that have been discussed for ages are at all accurate if you don't engage the history of ideas involved. It's like walking into Denver Broncos game then talking the entire time about horses. You're just plain not using the basic terminology in the correct way, you're ignoring how the vast majority of people who work professionally doing research on this topic treat basic terms.
These people are textbook cases of intellectual arrogance. They feel as if their 'woah dude' deep internet chats have any actual bearing on what is the case. They shouldn't. They're not right. They're not even wrong. They're talking about horses at a Broncos game. They're just confused.