Dogmatism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

It seems to me that the very height of dogmatism is to repeatedly tell everyone they should believe in some grand argument that you are keeping secret because they aren't worthy of it just yet.

A workable definition of hypocrisy would be calling everyone who does not do the above a dogmatist.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:32 am It seems to me that the very height of dogmatism is to repeatedly tell everyone they should believe in some grand argument that you are keeping secret because they aren't worthy of it just yet.

A workable definition of hypocrisy would be calling everyone who does not do the above a dogmatist.
That makes anybody who believes in morality a dogmatist then. No?
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:54 am You "believe in gravity" because things falling to the ground when dropped is evidence for gravity.
You "believe in morality" because __________ is evidence for morality.

Fill in the blank.
The entire philosophical notion of "belief" as "accurate expression of your state of mind in relation to the state of affairs" is incoherent horseshit. Especially for somebody who buys Rorty's arguments against representationalism in the "mirror of nature".
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:34 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:32 am It seems to me that the very height of dogmatism is to repeatedly tell everyone they should believe in some grand argument that you are keeping secret because they aren't worthy of it just yet.

A workable definition of hypocrisy would be calling everyone who does not do the above a dogmatist.
That makes anybody who believes in morality a dogmatist then. No?
That might depend upon the burden you impose on the phrase "believes in morality".

Seeing as you apparently class everyone who disputes the objective factual status of moral language as some sort of moral ghost with no right to take offence even if you stab all our sisters with a pitchfork covered in very bitey ants, then, to the extent that you always seem to just take this is a given with no plausible grounds for disagreement, you might well qualify as a dogmatist yourself.

But then again, some might think I am being dogmatic when I assert that you are a bullshitting attention-whoring maniac with whom extended conversations are never noteworthy except for their tedium, and that is why I don't read much of what you write any more.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:37 pm That might depend upon the burden you impose on the phrase "believes in morality".
I impose no burden. I am merely questioning the inconsistency of your own evidentiary/epistemic standards.

We use the words "belief" and "gravity" to form the expression "believe in gravity". It means whatever it means and we use it however we use it.
So when we use the words "believe" and "morality" to form the expression "believe in morality" the use/semantics of "belief" (whatever they are) must necessarily remain unchanged. Least you want to confess to equivocation.

So if you believe in gravity and apples falling from trees meets your own burden, then what meets your burden for believing in morality?

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:37 pm Seeing as you apparently class everyone who disputes the objective factual status of moral language as some sort of moral ghost with no right to take offence even if you stab all our sisters with a pitchfork covered in very bitey ants, then, to the extent that you always seem to just take this is a given with no plausible grounds for disagreement, you might well qualify as a dogmatist yourself.
You really seem to be confused about what's happening here. I am giving you no grounds to disagree with ME simply because I couldn't give a shit to have a dialogue with you - be it for the purposes of agreement OR disagreement. You are an idiot who gets a hard-on swinging your intellectual phallus, but the interaction leads to the very boredom you accuse me of.

I am simply pointing at your own double standard. Perhaps you were unaware of it, or perhaps it's the very thing you intentionally leverage towards always finding an angle for disagreement.

Either way you don't need me - the multiple personalities you keep in your head could argue it out all on their own seeming as you've convinced yourself that "belief in gravity" somehow means something entirely different to ''belief in morality", and that the process of obtaining evidence for those beliefs is somehow entirely different too.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:37 pm But then again, some might think I am being dogmatic when I assert that you are a bullshitting attention-whoring maniac with whom extended conversations are never noteworthy except for their tedium, and that is why I don't read much of what you write any more.
What would you ever do if you couldn't resort to strawmen, eh? You might actually have to address the point.

Or if. you were intellectually honest you might even have to admit that you can't address it. But I guess you aren't that guy...
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:11 pm You are an idiot who gets a hard-on swinging your intellectual phallus, but the interaction leads to the very boredom you accuse me of.
And you you are the one constantly clamouring for my attention and that of everyone else who thinks you are a fool.
Wave your pendulous umbrage at somebody who finds you amusing, I have stopped.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:14 pm And you you are the one constantly clamouring for my attention and that of everyone else who thinks you are a fool.
You continue to frame this as if it's about "your attention" and not me drawing attention to your double standards.

What a nacrissistic/self-centered asshole :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am a fool. Do not concern yourself with me. Focus on the fact that your shit the bed.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Oh noes, FlopDoodooPunch is an asshole. We should notify the news media so they can run some think pieces with titles like "How did we not see the signs?"
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:24 pm Oh noes, FlopDoodooPunch is an asshole. We should notify the news media so they can run some think pieces with titles like "How did we not see the signs?"
Oh noes, DangerDork continues to tackle the players (himself included) and not the ball!

When you are done throwing tantrums like a hormonal teenager, address my point about your double standards.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

But it's stupid. I believe in morality because I was raised to believe in morality, and that's the reason you do too. All this strictly to the extent that such a bizarre construct as "I believe in morality" actually means anything, it's quite a bizarre phrasing if you think about it.

But I was raised to think stealing is bad, and I believe stealing is indeed bad. This is a less weird construct that "I believe in morality" for some reason. Likewise, gravity is more of a reason for believing a rickety table will fail to hold some object off the floor than it is a thing to believe in by itself.

I also believe that if one fact entails that some other fact is untrue, then a fact has been incorrectly identified. You pretend not to believe that. But you keep insisting that I must be wrong because of something you are right about, all while pretending you are the one exposing the doubling of standards. And that's why I don't bother doing these conversations for very long.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:37 pm But it's stupid. I believe in morality because I was raised to believe in morality, and that's the reason you do too. All this strictly to the extent that such a bizarre construct as "I believe in morality" actually means anything, it's quite a bizarre phrasing if you think about it.
Well no shit it's stupid. The entire languag game of "beliefs" is stupid!

Why is the phrasing "I believe in morality" stupid/bizzare, but the phrasing "I believe in gravity", or God, or unicorns. Why is that not stupid or bizarre?
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:37 pm I also believe that if one fact entails that some other fact is untrue, then a fact has been incorrectly identified.
That's a really cryptic way to re-describe positivism and falsification.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:37 pm But it's stupid. I believe in morality because I was raised to believe in morality, and that's the reason you do too. All this strictly to the extent that such a bizarre construct as "I believe in morality" actually means anything, it's quite a bizarre phrasing if you think about it.
Well no shit it's stupid. The entire languag game of "beliefs" is stupid!

Why is the phrasing "I believe in morality" stupid/bizzare, but the phrasing "I believe in gravity", or God, or unicorns. Why is that not stupid or bizarre?
Language games are what they are, they are what we use, and we use them so long as they are useful. They aren't right or wrong, true or false, in any other respect. But belief as a language game is distinct from knowledge as a language game and it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference that you object to this. You can opt out of the whole thing if you really want, but the cost of that is that you can kind of only talk to yourself once you've made that decision.

There's quite a lot of On Certainty devoted to the strangeness of saying some of these things. If I remember correctly it's mostly about how odd it is to just insert into conversation the phrase "I know that is a tree". I would suggest that most of what is said there applies to odd phrases such as "I believe in gravity" as well. It is a fairly strange thing to affirm a belief in wouldn't you say? What are the circumstances under which such a belief would be in doubt? How would we proceed if somebody actually said "I don't believe in morality", what sort of conversation could you be having?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:48 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:37 pm I also believe that if one fact entails that some other fact is untrue, then a fact has been incorrectly identified.
That's a really cryptic way to re-describe positivism and falsification.
It's part of the language game of speaking of facts and knowledge. It would be weird to construct any theory of knowing stuff that didn't include such a simple and obvious item as that.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:58 pm Language games are what they are, they are what we use, and we use them so long as they are useful. They aren't right or wrong, true or false, in any other respect. But belief as a language game is distinct from knowledge as a language game and it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference that you object to this. You can opt out of the whole thing if you really want, but the cost of that is that you can kind of only talk to yourself once you've made that decision.
I can talk to humans just fine. It's just philosophers that I struggle with.

You want to pretend that Philosophy is serious business and that there are formal rules and standards to be adhered to.

So when I evaluate your homework according to your (strictly enforced) standards and keep pointing out you shit the bed - you really hate it.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:58 pm There's quite a lot of On Certainty devoted to the strangeness of saying some of these things. If I remember correctly it's mostly about how odd it is to just insert into conversation the phrase "I know that is a tree". I would suggest that most of what is said there applies to odd phrases such as "I believe in gravity" as well. It is a fairly strange thing to affirm a belief in wouldn't you say? What are the circumstances under which such a belief would be in doubt? How would we proceed if somebody actually said "I don't believe in morality", what sort of conversation could you be having?
A Philosophical conversation. Unnatural, deformed and artificially construed framework in which rules are rules and they must be adhered and everybody hates it when the rules are enforced.

But if you prefer the dialectical/interactive/cooperative mode instead of the dick-swinging mode - just say so.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Terrapin Station »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:32 am It seems to me that the very height of dogmatism is to repeatedly tell everyone they should believe in some grand argument that you are keeping secret because they aren't worthy of it just yet.

A workable definition of hypocrisy would be calling everyone who does not do the above a dogmatist.
I can see that, but I think it's more characteristic of just being the height of being a bullshitter. :wink:
Post Reply