You know, for a Jew, you are a lot more Christian than you ought to be – showing kindness, charity, and grace to those who clearly don't deserve it, etc., etc. Makes you very attractive. 😘
It is true that most of my article was complaining about the postmodern right rather than arguing against them. I spend a lot of time arguing that they're wrong. Here I was complaining about them. It's fine to argue someone is wrong and then complain--what's annoying is being very light on arguments and engaged almost entirely in complaints, or making dumb overly personal complaints.
You are allowed to bitch but I believe the vast majority of people who are not in favor of PEPFAR, for instance, are not post modern rightists.
However, if you make it sound like the default person who opposes what you want is stupid/immoral by your account, people will just accept the frame to show how narrow and unreasonable you are being with them. It will be obvious to everyone else but you will react in a way discordant with the reality that they are not actually terrible people at all.
It’s a way of telling you to be more humble, casting stones and such. They will make you tire your arms out real quick.
Case in point, I agreed with BB about Captive Dreamer re: PEPFAR a while ago, and defended his reasoning publicly, and he still lumped me in that same category (being one of Walt's "compadres"), with all of the attendant malignant associations. Which proves that the only rational action is to meet his careless arrogance is with even more careless arrogance. 🤷♂️
Arguments are more annoying than complaints. Moral arguments (in general, but even more so about shrimp welfare) amount to absolutely zero.
A complaint is an expression of someone's dislike of something. Nothing more empirical and objective than this.
An argument in moral matters is a tower of predicates, assumptions, and moral preferences masquarading as objective.
A complaint is a statement of where one stands.
An argument is a weasely way to strong-arm others to your bidding, rhetorical dhiarrea that nerds think should compell others to accept and settle the matter. And if they don't accept it or ignore it they can always feel superior that the others are stupid.
Arguments on moral, non-technical, matters are masturbatory.
Mmm...I like Bentham's Bulldog. Much of his reasoning is extremely keen, even amongst the relatively intelligent group that comprises Substack writers. I can understand how his language about people having a different point of view might offend some, though he isn't excessive about it. Would be nice if people could try to avoid making arguments that include hints of being a personal attack.
I think you've missed the point of his post. He isn't chasing rhetorical victories—he's engaged in the pursuit of truth. For someone with a philosophical temperament, the basic idea is this: persuading someone of a falsehood isn’t as win, winning is making an airtight argument that guarantees the truth of a claim even if it persuades nobody. This is why sparring with opponents who rely on rhetorical sleight of hands—like dismissing arguments as virtue signaling—simply doesn't deliver the philosophical satisfaction truth-seeking types care for. And that’s also the problem he’s pointing out: you can’t have truth seeking discussions with the other side if they’re playing a different game altogether
Whether they win or lose in life is besides the point. The point is the impossibility of even discussing what it means to win or lose with people who holds your views since this presupposes a common framework that yields truth. If arguments are ultimately about establishing dominance as you suggest, then beating someone to submission would qualify as an argument. "Might makes right."
Now of course I wouldn't assume that Bentham is incapable of playing rhetorical games. One can be a truth-seeker while also recognizing the art of rhetoric. He obviously doesn't appeal to post-modernists just as you don't appeal to him.
1) you are conveniently limiting what you say his article is about. I cite ample amounts of his text and respond. Why would you get to decide what his article is about but I would not get to have a say?
2) In failing to play the game, Bentham is failing to grapple with human nature. These arguments are made in public, here on Substack to be specific. While it is not obvious that convincing people he is right will result in the ends he wishes to see in the world, failing to convince people he is correct probably will make his causes stillborn.
Keep in mind, you can have truth on your side and be persuasive. All the best causes need persuasive people. Suggesting that I am making a might makes right argument is wrong. I am saying that if you get mogged by people “dunking on you,” and your only move is to keep hitting them with facts and logic, you are misunderstanding how life works.
If your model for getting what you want involves rewriting human nature, changing how the masses are supposed to process information and grapple with problems, you might be into philosophy. A philosopher who cared would practice up instead of telling everyone which styles to speaking are okay and which are contraband.
1) If I'm limiting my focus, then it's certainly not intentional. And while you responded to his text, you didn't strike me as concerned with the substantive point (e.g. the feasibility of having truth-seeking dialogue with post-modernists) but on rhetorical questions such as:
a) the rhetorical effectivenss of using facts and logics on political factions that rely on sensationalism and dunking. In other words, dude needs to get a six pack, wear a MAGA hat and learn the art of dunking to appeal to this crowd (slightly exagerating here)
b) something about the rhetoric of logical thinking and term-definitions that create certain binaries (e.g. friend/enemy or good/bad distinction) that rig debate against Bentham's opponents
I can go on... In sum, you weren't concerned with what his article is about but why it fails to persuade people such as yourself who I presume is in alignment with the "dunkers"
2) And this is where I disagree. Discussing things in terms of "Facts and Logic", just like "Dunking", are also rhetorical moves. Indeed EA-ers have been explicit about this. They have no interest in appealing to the mob but to "smart fractions".. you know, the more cerebral wealthy types who tend to respond to facts and logic rather than say "dunking." Now of course one can debate whether the EA movement has been a success. Indeed, one can even say that MAGA is now in charge. One thing that isn't debatable is whether smart people tend to be responsive to reason or mud-slinging. Truth matters.
You inspired me! I haven’t picked up a Rubik’s Cube in maybe thirty years. But the other day I saw one randomly in a box of old stuff I was moving in the attic. So I picked it up and -- I still got it! 41 seconds.
You know, for a Jew, you are a lot more Christian than you ought to be – showing kindness, charity, and grace to those who clearly don't deserve it, etc., etc. Makes you very attractive. 😘
It is true that most of my article was complaining about the postmodern right rather than arguing against them. I spend a lot of time arguing that they're wrong. Here I was complaining about them. It's fine to argue someone is wrong and then complain--what's annoying is being very light on arguments and engaged almost entirely in complaints, or making dumb overly personal complaints.
You are allowed to bitch but I believe the vast majority of people who are not in favor of PEPFAR, for instance, are not post modern rightists.
However, if you make it sound like the default person who opposes what you want is stupid/immoral by your account, people will just accept the frame to show how narrow and unreasonable you are being with them. It will be obvious to everyone else but you will react in a way discordant with the reality that they are not actually terrible people at all.
It’s a way of telling you to be more humble, casting stones and such. They will make you tire your arms out real quick.
I give reasons to support PEPFAR increases. I don't just assume everyone who disagrees is evil, though many of the most vocal opponents actually are.
Case in point, I agreed with BB about Captive Dreamer re: PEPFAR a while ago, and defended his reasoning publicly, and he still lumped me in that same category (being one of Walt's "compadres"), with all of the attendant malignant associations. Which proves that the only rational action is to meet his careless arrogance is with even more careless arrogance. 🤷♂️
Arguments are more annoying than complaints. Moral arguments (in general, but even more so about shrimp welfare) amount to absolutely zero.
A complaint is an expression of someone's dislike of something. Nothing more empirical and objective than this.
An argument in moral matters is a tower of predicates, assumptions, and moral preferences masquarading as objective.
A complaint is a statement of where one stands.
An argument is a weasely way to strong-arm others to your bidding, rhetorical dhiarrea that nerds think should compell others to accept and settle the matter. And if they don't accept it or ignore it they can always feel superior that the others are stupid.
Arguments on moral, non-technical, matters are masturbatory.
>In Bentham’s rubric for life, you can either be Bentham or need Bentham. All other options are invalid.
Yeah, that is every philosopher ever, from Peter Singer to Edward Feser. We might just say this is generally the problem with philosophers.
Mmm...I like Bentham's Bulldog. Much of his reasoning is extremely keen, even amongst the relatively intelligent group that comprises Substack writers. I can understand how his language about people having a different point of view might offend some, though he isn't excessive about it. Would be nice if people could try to avoid making arguments that include hints of being a personal attack.
Don't even need to read this
I just hate the guy on vibes alone
Like Hanania
You write a lot like I do when you lambast uptight nerds like this lol
I think you've missed the point of his post. He isn't chasing rhetorical victories—he's engaged in the pursuit of truth. For someone with a philosophical temperament, the basic idea is this: persuading someone of a falsehood isn’t as win, winning is making an airtight argument that guarantees the truth of a claim even if it persuades nobody. This is why sparring with opponents who rely on rhetorical sleight of hands—like dismissing arguments as virtue signaling—simply doesn't deliver the philosophical satisfaction truth-seeking types care for. And that’s also the problem he’s pointing out: you can’t have truth seeking discussions with the other side if they’re playing a different game altogether
This is why “people with philosophical temperaments” often lose in life.
You can pursue truth all you want but arguments do not establish the truth. They establish dominance.
Whether they win or lose in life is besides the point. The point is the impossibility of even discussing what it means to win or lose with people who holds your views since this presupposes a common framework that yields truth. If arguments are ultimately about establishing dominance as you suggest, then beating someone to submission would qualify as an argument. "Might makes right."
Now of course I wouldn't assume that Bentham is incapable of playing rhetorical games. One can be a truth-seeker while also recognizing the art of rhetoric. He obviously doesn't appeal to post-modernists just as you don't appeal to him.
Two things:
1) you are conveniently limiting what you say his article is about. I cite ample amounts of his text and respond. Why would you get to decide what his article is about but I would not get to have a say?
2) In failing to play the game, Bentham is failing to grapple with human nature. These arguments are made in public, here on Substack to be specific. While it is not obvious that convincing people he is right will result in the ends he wishes to see in the world, failing to convince people he is correct probably will make his causes stillborn.
Keep in mind, you can have truth on your side and be persuasive. All the best causes need persuasive people. Suggesting that I am making a might makes right argument is wrong. I am saying that if you get mogged by people “dunking on you,” and your only move is to keep hitting them with facts and logic, you are misunderstanding how life works.
If your model for getting what you want involves rewriting human nature, changing how the masses are supposed to process information and grapple with problems, you might be into philosophy. A philosopher who cared would practice up instead of telling everyone which styles to speaking are okay and which are contraband.
1) If I'm limiting my focus, then it's certainly not intentional. And while you responded to his text, you didn't strike me as concerned with the substantive point (e.g. the feasibility of having truth-seeking dialogue with post-modernists) but on rhetorical questions such as:
a) the rhetorical effectivenss of using facts and logics on political factions that rely on sensationalism and dunking. In other words, dude needs to get a six pack, wear a MAGA hat and learn the art of dunking to appeal to this crowd (slightly exagerating here)
b) something about the rhetoric of logical thinking and term-definitions that create certain binaries (e.g. friend/enemy or good/bad distinction) that rig debate against Bentham's opponents
I can go on... In sum, you weren't concerned with what his article is about but why it fails to persuade people such as yourself who I presume is in alignment with the "dunkers"
2) And this is where I disagree. Discussing things in terms of "Facts and Logic", just like "Dunking", are also rhetorical moves. Indeed EA-ers have been explicit about this. They have no interest in appealing to the mob but to "smart fractions".. you know, the more cerebral wealthy types who tend to respond to facts and logic rather than say "dunking." Now of course one can debate whether the EA movement has been a success. Indeed, one can even say that MAGA is now in charge. One thing that isn't debatable is whether smart people tend to be responsive to reason or mud-slinging. Truth matters.
To quote myself: “Keep in mind, you can have truth on your side and be persuasive.”
You inspired me! I haven’t picked up a Rubik’s Cube in maybe thirty years. But the other day I saw one randomly in a box of old stuff I was moving in the attic. So I picked it up and -- I still got it! 41 seconds.
They don’t love shrimp. They just hate their dad.