"Backwardness!!"
I've been spending a lot of time thinking. I done some arguing recently, not as much as usual considering that I don't have Leeor or Ted around, but it has been very interesting, and I've come to a realization. When I argue with Ted or Leeor, there is a fundamental common basis of certain values and ideas, which are accepted implicitly and form a basis for mutual understanding of the argument. This is not to say that we agree on everything--quite the contrary, we disagree at least as much as we agree. Yet these fundamental and subliminal ideas and values play a vital role in the basis of argument formation. For instance, the notion that policy decisions should be made with regard to the implications that they will have on future generations is one of these many basic and unspoken axioms of our discourse. Being with a group of people with a much more diverse set of experiences and backgrounds than my own group of friends demonstrates how these seemingly constant "axioms" are in fact completely arbitrary constructs of our cultural identity. Take for instance my argument about recycling with a certain someone. He has held consistently that it is actually less energy efficient and environmentally beneficial to recycle than it is to throw things away. He also maintains that even if it were beneficial environmentally or economically, he still wouldn't do it because he maintains that it would only benefit future generations. Without a common philosophical context in which to make judgements there can be no common basis for argumentation and any conclusion whatsoever. In such a situation, no conclusions can be reached and no one can be convinced of anything else, which is precisely why arguing about politics is always so fruitless. And now, I am exhausted and must sleep.
Sometimes the way you blog about issues seems unintelligible, or the issues themselves uninteresting to me, but this entry I saw eye to eye with you the whole way through. I've had this exact thought process myself. I find it especially annoying when a person who claims to be looking for enlightening debate refuses to question the values behind the issue. Often it seems people are only willing to discuss when they can have the crutch of an irrational yet un-disprovable belief to fall back upon in order to stick to their guns. This the sad absense of Socratic Method in our society; the goal of debate is no longer to become enlightened, to learn from the points of the other person to either strengthen, weaken, or change a position, but to be the person who is able to stick to their belief the strongest and find the most opportunities to declare the other person a moron. Such is the political climate that America has happily wandered into.
Adam, actually I don't believe in long-term thinking. However, even if recylcling is only economical in the long-term, I believe it we should still recycle because it pleases me in the short-term that our people will be better off in the long-term. Is that contradictory? Hm...
I like telling people they're wrong and stuffing it their faces--er, I mean debating. For the last month or so, I've been debating evolution with a few relgious folks online. The main problem with the Socratic method is that the other party must attempt to answer the questions well. You should come help me debate at http://invisionfree.com/forums/Atheist_Empire/index.php?showtopic=402&st=60. It is a website for a group of people who participate on the nation simulator, nationstates.net.
Maxwell, do you play Connect Four online anymore? We should play sometime. And by the way, you're a moron. Sh! Arguing only helps my case.
I'm such a terrible writer. I envy you Adam. Not that I think you're a good writer, but you are better at it than me. I should probably organize my thoughts before writing. Or use engaging, varied words.
Or write in complete sentences.
Or at least prrofread.
My connect four game is getting very rusty, Ted. Sure, my knowledge of standard strategy is intact, but after more than a month without true competition, my insticts have faded. And without instincts, I'm no better than Colin Corbett. (oooh diss).
By the way, I'd be happy to debate religion with you Ted, although I believe in a God-guided evolution so I'm not sure we'd have a lot to debate with that topic.
Wtf? You can't have a debate if you can't agree on premises? Then you debate THOSE premises, then get to the point. Somewhere along the line you will hit
a set of premises that are more or less universal. When it comes to recycling, I'm really being a fascist pig when I say I hate it because it won't help me.
But think about it. Who the fuck cares about the past. Likewise, who the fuck cares about the future? Using YOUR belief system (how's that for shared premises?), death is the truncation of existence. Even the phrase "the future, after I die" almost loses all vestiges of meaning. I mean I like being a happy-go-lucky hippy as much as the next guy, but if it won't benefit me personally EVER, what is the point? Holla Hobbes.
Josh, you're misunderstanding my point, which happens to be not that it is impossible to debate the fundamental axioms of a belief system, but rather that these axioms are culturally ingrained in people to the extent that it becomes nearly impossible to sucessfully debate them. In most cases neither side can overcome these intrinsic biases.
You're oversimplifying my belief system on recycling. Firstly, it gives me satisfaction and pleasure to do something that benefits other people, even if it may be after I am dead. True, my death is the truncation of my existence, but I believe that other people exist and are not just figments of my imagination. It therefore follows that I believe that other people will live after I die. Thus, recycling is an element of my pursuit of happiness (your Aristotle...). It is also false to say that I will not benefit at all in my lifetime from recycling. For example, computers and electronics contain high levels of mercury, lead, and other heavy metals. If not for recycling, these materials would be thrown into landfills and would trickle into groundwater. These chemicals would pollute the water supply and end up in fish, leading to a personal health risk to me in this lifetime. By making the decision to recycle these materials, I am making a tiny impact environmentally which benefits myself, other now, others in the future, and prevents environmental damage. This gives me emotional satisfaction as well as security of physical health. QED.
Nearly impossible to debate != impossible to debate.
I'm glad that helping people that may exist after you (and will never know you) makes you hard. But frankly, I dont give a shit about people after me. I really dont and I dont see how anyone else honestly can.
And sure recycling, though it often outweighs the cost of reproducing, has a minor effect on my life. I assert, however, that without recycling, my life would be largely unchanged. Therefore, what is the point (regardless of how easy it is)?
You are arguing from an altruistic point of view, and altruism is t3h suck. I'm arguing pragmatism, that recycling has no practical value to me.
I'm arguing that it's nearly impossible to debate because people don't want to give up their biases. It's a function of the people debating, not the values or nature of the values being debated.
As for recycling and pragmatism vs. altruism, the argument for recycling is based both in pragmatism and altruism. Furthermore, altruism is an offshoot of pragmatism. The pursuit of happiness is certainly a pragmatic ideal. For many people altruism in varying degrees provides fulfillment and/or happiness. Pragmatism must necessarily involve this element of happiness. Without it, there would be no motivation for things like art, music, culture, and sitting around and arguing like we are. We would be selfish workhorses. I don't think this is what you are arguing for, but it serves as a "reducto ad absurdum"-style justification for the necessity of including altruism as a component of pragmatism. It is also foolish to ignore the fact that recycling can impact an individual's personal life. It may require that many people recycle, but it does make a difference. The heavy metals example I mentioned, it just one instance.
Altruism does not exist. All organisms live to reduce their environmental stresses and feel pleasure. Altruism is merely the label given to the mode of behavior in which an individual appears to behave unselfishly, when in fact, the organism is behaving selfishly.
True, benefiting the collective does benefit the individual. Altruism is just the type of selfishness that happens to benefit the collective some way, but benefits in the individual by providing happiness, fulfillment, or some highly indirect tangible benefit.
Altruism doesn't exist -- but how come your parents spend time and money to raise you? It's because you share their genes. It is in their selfish interests. The genes rule you and your parents. They are designed, by natural selection, to produce the most copies in future generations. And you are their slaves. Call it altruism. Call it self interest. It's the same. We are ruled by our genes.
My genes don't rule me. Genes only provide the blueprint for life. They actually contract out all of the work. I (my mind) rule(s) me and I (it) is not a static being. For instance, genes tell a body to produce random fingerprints, but don't give specific instructions. That's why identical twins have different prints. People with the same genes can vary in wildly different ways: body fat, kindness, muscle tissue, or intelligence--and even when brought up in the same environment. Don't let your genes control your life; you should wear the pants in your life.
Haha. Genes -> jeans -> pants. That's funny stuff.