“bad ideas” … who’s bad ideas? Who gets to say? Trump has many “bad ideas” or perhaps they are incubated among some as good ideas? What do you suggest we do with people’s thinking? I would suggest that an integral understanding of this simple topic would not require an in depth inquiry into others?
Perhaps when reading the book you referenced, where we can all clearly see and identify how this applies to everyone else. Maybe we could all take a slow deep look at our own views? That might be best in identifying where and how to heal ourselves and society too?
Sadly so few people actually think for themselves. Too many of us just accept our biases and confirm them into the very delusions and cognitive deterioration that flourishes today? If we can be humble enough to examine ourselves and challenge our own subjective views, perhaps we will see how these mind-viruses exist in our own thinking? It seems to me that would be a sound integral inquiry to contemplate, would you agree?
I think I already said … “challenge”.
Challenging people is actually healthy and a necessary part of coaching, development and improvement.
If a coach never challenges an athlete they won’t improve at the same pace as with a coach that challenges them. Whether it be athletics, “life coaching” or other.
It’s all well and good if people look internally, but I consider this a “pie in the sky” approach because people just don’t do it.
I think you make a good point here … most people are not integral in their thinking. My solution offers the suggestion of making personal changes with ourselves. Through our own thinking and understanding we gain greater clarity, rather than trying to influence others to conform to mine.
If you were using “sword” figuratively to include all violence - it’s necessary to break that down into specific types of violence.
Otherwise I have to guess what your meaning is.
Are you asking if we should engage in street fights every time our political ideas are challenged?
No, that would be absurd
Should we as a nation use nuclear weapons every time our political ideas as a nation are challenged?
No of course not - again absurd.
Am I a pacifist? No - so somewhere on the range between pacifism and absurdity “the sword” is an option. On the personal level those options are severely limited if nothing else because assault and murder carry extremely long prison sentences.
But even without that - the people who buy guns and shoot people over political ideologies probably do so because at some point in time nobody challenged their initial crazy idea and over the years bad idea after bad idea was allowed to grow unchallenged in them until ultimately they put their culminating bad into action - a mass killing.
And ultimately - yes, either the police or someone else had to use “the sword” to stop them from carrying out their ultimate bad idea further.
I’m not interested in engaging in a circular philosophical debate ad nauseum. We are going through things I already said but I’m not sure if you don’t understand what I said or if you are intentionally refusing to recognize the meaning of the words I wrote.
Either way, it’s an exercise in futility to engage you further.
I saw a contradiction in your presentation so I asked a question to clarity that. Your response feels like a dodge but I’m okay if you want this conversation to be over … no pressure. ~ Peace
I just saw this and am very interested in this book and discussing it, Are you doing it online, and is it possible to still be involved? I think this is a very important topic,
Unfortunately, I’m doing it with a local face to face meetup group.
But you can also post here. Conversations tend to get derailed here a lot for a variety of reasons, but to the degree the distracting conversations are “bad ideas” - it’s also an opportunity to practice challenging bad ideas.
An interesting note, though - the person leading my local discussion reached out to the author and the author actually responded and seems keen on the idea of people forming such groups.
It could be an opportunity to find similar people in your area and form a group where you find local issues that have a direct impact on your immediate lives.
The idea of a National or Global discussion has a lot more “moving parts”. It’ll be necessary at some point, but right now I’m still reading the book, lol.
It’s not about logic, perhaps it’s all about character.
Corey had brought up not being “anti-authority”. Perhaps its as simple as “don’t tell me what to do”.
Well, he uses the word “character” in a nontraditional meaning that is not in conflict with rules of logic, but are actually just more precise than his descriptions. Rules of Logical thinking are a kind of code that help prevent or at least describe “bad intellectual character”, and how to describe it and counter it. Gullibility, carelessness and closed-mindedness are examples of what the US philosopher Linda Zagzebski, in her book Virtues of the Mind (1996), has called ‘intellectual vices’. Others include negligence, idleness, rigidity, obtuseness, prejudice, lack of thoroughness, and insensitivity to detail.
Usually when people use logical fallacies, they are doing so because they are gullible, careless, close minded, negligent, etc.
So it’s not either logic or character, but instead the two are different ways to describe similar things.
Both accepting authority and refusing to accept authority are illogical. If a person is the President (for example), that is irrelevant to whether what he says is true or not.
I have a friend who is a retired MD and almost died from Covid because he believed in his own authority as an MD, but was close minded (and also illogical) on the topic of big Pharma. He is well informed regarding the pharmaceutical system, but engaged a logical fallacy and believed that expertise transferred over to COVID. He believed in his authority medical matters because he was an MD, and ignored the data point that 95% of people hospitalized and / or die from COVID are unvaccinated.
