First off, I see no interest on your part in dealing with the critiques of Churchland's critique that I posted. Nor your explanation of how the OP relates to PH's position. If you really wanted to discuss the issue feel free to.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 3:27 am
The OP is more of an 'attention getter' like headlines in News, adverts and other media.
I have also raised quite a number of thread related to the Philosophy of Language.
Regardless, ultimately this is thread for discussion and debate, open to whatever related views.
Well, now you've heard that it comes off as if you think the opposed view has been defeated, period. Which fits with other habits you have. Instead of saying you disagree, you tell the people you disagree with what is wrong with them, rather than or in addition to telling them what is wrong with their arguments.
You called it a stinger, now you call it an attention getter. I think it's just poor framing.
That feedback will affect you or not.
It is not realistic just to focus on arguments and posts alone.
Of course that would be realistic.
I have been in Philosophical Forum long enough to note the various underlying psychological issues underlying all the various disagreements and the emotional expressions associated with the posts.
Of course.
When posters get emotional and go into rage, they are engaging more of their emotional faculties in the limbic parts than their rational faculties in the neo-cortex; as a normal human being, my emotional faculties are also triggered which reduced my rational competence which is critically necessary to deal with complex philosophical issues. As such I have to manage my triggered emotional responses; so I rather avoid it [where I have a discretion] rather than have to be bothered with it.
So it is an intelligent question to ask the 'WHYs' of the above rages and madness.
It's actually a different topic. If you are arguing with a theist who has presented an argument for God, you focus on the argument they put forward and counter their critiques of your arguments. A separate thread can focus on the topic of the psychology of theists. The moment you add in the latter discussion in the former you are going ad hom which is a fallacy and likely insulting them.
I understand that people get ad hommy and insulting with you. If that happens, I agree, then it's fair game to return the 'favor'.
You've gotten feedback about that now. It will affect you or it won't.
My main response to this thread is actually how the way you framed the issue - as settled and won by one side - is misleading and fits a pattern of how you respond to others.
Here is one good example, why understanding the poster's psychological background is critical;
I was afraid because I had no idea nor did I understand what was going on and I let my fear get the best of me and responded by trying to be controlling and shutting people down.
viewtopic.php?p=658460#p658460
Yeah, that was great. He opened up and admitted something.
That doesn't justify going ad hom on people who haven't done that to you. You showing me that post assumes, it seems, that I don't realize that psychology underlies the way people post and react to the posts of others. Trust me I know this.
In response to PH saying that you don't admit being wrong, etc., you said that you have done this in the past.
I assume you were Spectrum. But I don't remember Spectrum conceding anything significant. You said you were a theist (I guess you were not a Christian, since you denied that. What kind of Christian were you?
Can you link to a place where you conceded in response to someone's post that you were wrong about theism?
Because that seems implicit in how you responded to PH
The point is, if the person above did not declare his emotional state which had effected his responses and will ever do that, then, it would be wise to understand his psychological state on our own.
The above is typical and expected from one who hold a philosophical realist's position which trigger the psychology of fear, strong defense mechanism, going into rage, simply attack, attack & attack and the like.
I'm sorry, but ANYONE even an antirealist can have defense mechanisms. People are attached to their positions and can be stubborn, jump to ad homs, not respond to points they don't know how to rather than admitting that, avoid conceding anything and so on regardless of what position it is. It's human nature which does not just disappear when one becomes an antirealist or dualist or monist or atheist or whatever.
Unless you have some evidence that antirealists are less attached to their positions, less violent, less stubborn, more willing admit mistakes, less likely to use ad homs and insults and other fallacies and so on.
Link me to the research if you like.