conrads_space: Dicuss: Post and Riposte

Conrad (

conrads_space) wrote,
@ 2004-12-28 00:01:00

Current mood:

curious

Dicuss: Post and Riposte
A friend of mine said of most people:

A person cannot begin to convince someone else of something they do not want to believe.
In other words, to even be open to changing your point of view, you must move to that place yourself - no one can lead you there.

Discuss, if you please. I really want to know what you think.

(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	mankelly 2004-12-28 06:32 am UTC (link)
	I'd like to think you can convince anyone of anything, be it with words or some sort of lead brick. However... using Baptists as an example I think that this does hold water. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-28 07:39 am UTC (link)
	I knew you'd have my back on this. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	mankelly 2004-12-28 08:09 am UTC (link)
	Word my brotha. I'm sure if Will could get his pink shirt off and read this that he'd agree as well. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-29 09:51 am UTC (link)
	Will really just needs to throw that thing away. I mean, really, who wears pink shirts anymore? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	iwill 2005-04-22 10:27 pm UTC (link)
	You two are about as funny as each other. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2005-04-27 07:02 am UTC (link)
	And that's pretty funny! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	iwill 2005-04-27 10:36 am UTC (link)
	And don't think that I don't know about this thread. Or your dodgy ispreadliesaboutwillstshirts community :X (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	mankelly 2005-04-28 03:58 am UTC (link)
	OH NOES!! EVIL MANKELLY must have made this comment. I'm so sorry. I'll talk to him about that. -Good Mankelly (Reply to this) (Parent)

conrads_space
2004-12-28 06:40 pm UTC (link)

I'm talking about people, not Baptists, silly man.

;P

But seriously, I think one of the reasons people like Baptists are so difficult to convince is that there is not enough understanding as to what their position actually is. For example, I think most of them are probably fideists, but they don't tend to identify themselves as such. That, at least, is the first step to progress.

Obviously if someone absolutely refuses to believe something, it will be impossible to convince them. But I think I've known people who have been convinced of things they didn't want to believe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-28 07:50 am UTC (link)
	Dammit, "Conrad"! It's "most people" - "most people can't be convinced of something they don't want to believe" or, even, "most people only believe what they want to believe". Don't straw-man me, dude. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	conrads_space 2004-12-28 06:28 pm UTC (link)
	Are you saying you want the "most people" to be in the bold section rather than above it? Picky picky, Mr. Pessimism :P (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-29 09:49 am UTC (link)
	Yes. You've set up the argument to make it look weaker than it is by using a brilliant rhetorical flourish. And while I can appreciate that aesthetically, I can't condone it philosophically. :-P (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	conrads_space 2004-12-30 05:16 am UTC (link)
	Well I have to use brilliant rhetorical flourishes to convince those who won't be convinced by logical argument, Ben. :P (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-30 08:43 am UTC (link)
	My point, exactly, Dan. (Reply to this) (Parent)

priorysion
2004-12-28 06:13 pm UTC (link)

Somehow I knew Ben was behind this. He has said similar things to me.

My view: Convincing people in said instance is indeed difficult and requiring of intense maintenance. However, I cannot think of an instance where I was not, at the very least, able to plant the seeds of personal consideration. I think people often begin to believe others are unchangeable if they themselves lack persuasive talent.
Also... Many people just aren't worth my time. Harsh, but true.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	conrads_space 2004-12-28 06:45 pm UTC (link)
	I tend to agree. If I can't convince someone of something I usually attribute it to my own misunderstanding of my position or inarticulateness on my part (especially in verbal, rather than written, communication). And yes, most people really aren't worthy of that kind of intensive work. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-29 09:56 am UTC (link)
	See, I think that's much more pessimistic a position than the one I'm advocating. If people aren't worth it, then why bother fighting to make the world a better place at all? That line of thinking leads right to ... Nietschean/Objectivist ethics in the worst kind of way. Just because most people are scared, or weak, even, doesn't mean they're not worth it. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

conrads_space
2004-12-30 05:14 am UTC (link)

Now don't go tarnishing the good name of Nietzsche with the likes of Ayn Rand.

;)

You don't think that giving up on talking to the people who refuse to be talked into any position is the logical end of your argument? I mean, I don't find it to be a reductio or anything.

Although it of course does not entail that the world can't become a better place through activism etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-30 08:45 am UTC (link)
	I think the logical end of my argument is that virtually all activism is, essentially, tilting at windmills. This doesn't mean you should stop, though. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	iwill 2005-04-22 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	Precisely - after all, how could you come to any conclusion concerning the normative merely from an investigation of the nature of activism, even if it be an accurate investigation? David Hume would really like to know ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2005-04-27 07:06 am UTC (link)
	There's lots of things David Hume would really like to know. ;-) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

iwill
2005-04-27 10:35 am UTC (link)

Course convenor: "So you're going to say something about what we should do on the basis of the nature of software. You know, I'm just going to be sitting there on the sidelines with David Hume, astonished to find that suddenly, we are no longer discussing what is but what ought to be."
Me: "Oh. Point."
Course convenor: "It's called the naturalistic fallacy, and I know you know that, because I taught you it and you wrote an essay about it two years ago. In a way, it would be deliciously ironic. But somehow, I think that when it comes to your final doctoral examination, you're not going to sit back and bask in the glorious irony of the situation."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

This may be a tad presumptuous, but ...

driftwoodsun
2005-04-30 06:37 am UTC (link)

The is/ought divide tends only to be a problem from an abstracted, indifferent point of view (a Kantian or Taoist perspective, if you will).

From the social agent's perspective, however, this "problem" disappears. (What is [I am hungry] indicates what ought to be or I ought to do [I ought to be fed/eat].

If your interlocuter disputes this, he's confused about how the word "ought" is used (as Hume was) - it only makes sense within a framework of means and ends which is why it becomes problematic when it is abstracted from this framework.

To take, as your starting position, the nature of software is actually very smart, since the only way to make an argument for what we ought to do with software is to understand what software is, what it has the potential to be, and the place it currently occupies within societies framework of means and ends (that is, what does software do for us, since software, in itself, has neither means nor ends?)

This discussion easily segues into intellectual property and copyright law (and, of course, [and this is where I reveal my very American ignorance of the outside world] the British equivalent of Constitutional law, since, presumably, such a document articulates the professed ends of British society [or at least its political, legal and social structure]).

You can then argue, given the nature of software (in this case representing certain means) and the ends professed in the most profound British legal and political documents, that the British Parliament (where software is concerned) ought to legislate in such a way so as to best meet those professed ends.

Does this make any sense whatsoever? I'm going on 3 hours sleep.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: This may be a tad presumptuous, but ...

iwill
2005-04-30 09:37 am UTC (link)

I think, perhaps, that you should have been there - he was actually making a blindingly obvious statement which shouldn't have been needed.

The point that was being made was that to talk solely about the nature of software, and then to make some sort of claim about what we ought to do on the basis of the discussion of that nature and nothing else, makes no sense.

For example, you can't conclude anything about what I ought to do from the nature of a plate of steak and chips alone. I can neither conclude that I ought to eat it, nor that I ought not - there needs to be some additional normative information - that, for example, when I am hungry I ought to eat. The ought (I ought to eat) does not derive from the is (the nature of a plate of steak and chips) - how could it?

To explain it in context: there is an argument in the literature that software has been misclassified within IP, because it is protected as a literary work within copyright, but is in its nature inherently utilitarian. On the surface of things, that makes sense - but not on its own. Why should the utilitarian nature alone of software mean that we ought not to protect it by copyright? The only way to justify such a claim is by bringing in some sort of normative premise about how we ought to protect objects within IP (e.g. by discussing the aims of IP and positing that we wish to fulfil those aims, which is more or less what you were suggesting) - the nature of software itself does not justify any particular action.

Re constitutional law - the UK is one of the two (I believe) countries in the world not to have a written constitution. We have constitutional conventions, but these can be overruled by Parliament - in fact, the sovereignty of Parliament is probably the only British convention that could not be scrapped. Unlike the US, we don't have set social goals to refer to in the interpretation of the law.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

driftwoodsun
2004-12-29 10:03 am UTC (link)

I don't think people are unchangeable. I want to make that very clear.

My original statement was: "Most people believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it. And, because most people do not want to believe that they might be wrong, it is nearly, or even, impossible to change them through logical argument."

Or something along those lines.

If you think about it, if the first few premises are true, then the conclusion follows for a number of different reasons.

And trust me, I don't lack persuasive talent.

Speaking to me often changes people's lives. And I'm very charming. Or so I've been told.

Also, I am faux-arrogant. ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	conrads_space 2004-12-30 05:39 am UTC (link)
	That's a clearer formulation of your position. I'll post on it soon. I just got through with a big discussion with my Dad re: Iraq; I know exactly what you mean by people not being convinced by logical argument. There are exceptions , of course. And yes, you're very convincing. ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	driftwoodsun 2004-12-30 08:46 am UTC (link)
	You are such a bitch sometimes. :-P ;-) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	conrads_space 2004-12-30 06:16 pm UTC (link)
	That's why you love me :P (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fakebutterfly 2005-08-29 06:37 pm UTC (link)
	is this the conrad that was in IOC? if it is, hola sir, for this is holly. if it is not, you conrad, are one smart cookie (for you fooled me into thinking you were conrad), and i shall be adding you irregardless of irregardless not being a real word. (Reply to this)

(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store