GENIUS FORUMS

Neil,

You can only become, say, and anthropologist or a philosopher. Only one. What one will it be?

This is called a false dichotomy. It is a fallacy, and I can see how you can get from this fallacy to your poorly considered notion of morality.

But, I can correct it easily:

For instance, I was spending some time a while ago correcting an anthropology textbook, since the concepts were weak, so I can do both.

I could also do neither, and many people would say that since I'm getting a degree in neither, I am doing neither.

Now, since I find anthropology to be insane (I said, I was correcting a textbook), I will not do it. The conceptual foundations of the discipline are weak. However, I understood and, quite unfortunately, memorized quite a few of these concepts that I corrected --

I weigh the cons of one half. Now, I can weigh the cons of philosophy. And I can weigh the pros. I can extrapolate consequences. Then I make a decision, and this decision will be rational, and based both on my values and on an assessment of the situation. This is how one makes moral choices: not from inability, but from insight.

Your pseudo-Nietzschean idea that the only reason I'm not doing anthropology is because I can't do it, is quite a bit of a stretch.

And, I know you are making a stretch quite easily: you tried to compare my decision not to do anthropology to an arrogant buffoon in Church who imagines he's powerful because he feels a tingle during prayer-time.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:This is called a false dichotomy.

You took it differently than I meant it. You can only become a full, 100% anthropologist or a full 100% philosopher, or anything inbetween or neither at all of course. However the point is you can take only one route.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Now, since I find anthropology to be insane (I said, I was correcting a textbook), I will not do it.

You can not do it. I challenge you to do it to prove me wrong. If you succeed, you could not not have.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I weigh the cons of one half. Now, I can weigh the cons of philosophy. And I can weigh the pros. I can extrapolate consequences. Then I make a decision, and this decision will be rational, and based both on my values and on an assessment of the situation. This is how one makes moral choices: not from inability, but from insight.

I didn't mean at all that you can only not be able to do something by being too weak to do it. You cannot constantly exert power, you have to know when to do so to be powerful. But to exert no power is to be powerless because you are the sum of what you do.

Neil,

You took it differently than I meant it. You can only become a full, 100% anthropologist or a full 100% philosopher, or anything inbetween or neither at all of course. However the point is you can take only one route.

I took it exactly as you meant it, then. When you create a scenario like this, you are creating a false dichotomy. For one thing, there is no such thing as a "full 100% anthropologist" or "full 100% philosopher"; for another, I can theoretically do both or neither.

You can not do it. I challenge you to do it to prove me wrong. If you succeed, you could not not have.

What? Are you trying to heckle me into accepting a dare? I mean, for the love of Nietzsche, I have already decided that anthropology is stupid. I don't need to go out and do it.

I didn't mean at all that you can only not be able to do something by being too weak to do it. You cannot constantly exert power, you have to know when to do so to be powerful. But to exert no power is to be powerless because you are the sum of what you do.

These concepts are accurate, but now I'm wondering if you know what they mean -- since you brought them into a thread on morality. They cannot be used to make moral choices: they are purely descriptive.

You need a normative value before you can use these concepts. If you want the power to heal someone, go to med school. Just talking about abstract principles of power is fruitless, unless you want to spend your days idling in sociology class.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I took it exactly as you meant it, then. When you create a scenario like this, you are creating a false dichotomy. For one thing, there is no such thing as a "full 100% anthropologist" or "full 100% philosopher"; for another, I can easily do both or neither.

Better explanation: You can only live your life once. You cannot live it in two different manners (one whole lifetime as, say, a philosopher, another whole different lifetime as say, an anthropologist).

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:What? Are you trying to heckle me into accepting a dare? I mean, for the love of Nietzsche, I have already decided that anthropology is stupid. I don't need to go out and do it.

I believe you cannot be an anthropologist -- perhaps you are too intelligent for it.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:These concepts are accurate, but now I'm wondering if you know what they mean -- since you brought them into a thread on morality. They cannot be used to make moral choices: they are purely descriptive.

You need a normative value before you can use these concepts. If you want the power to heal someone, go to med school. Just talking about abstract principles of power is fruitless, unless you want to spend your days idling in sociology class.

Well the normative value here is a value for power I would say, seeing as both parties involved want to claim they are strong or powerful. One wants to claim this by exerting no power, the other by exerting power. I just wanted to point out that if you exert no power you are not in fact powerful.

...and Neil... well. How long does it usually take for someone to outgrow Nietzsche? (I might as well be asking how long it takes, on average, for a fundie to outgrow Jesus; sometimes it never happens.)

If it's just a phase, 25-28 at the latest, and usually much earlier. If the person actually has no conscience, never.