site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   1902 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 7, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Bing: I see. You are suggesting that Rand and Lewis had a common goal of creating a free and prosperous society, but for different reasons and with different motivations. You are also suggesting that this is the point where their philosophical differences become irreconcilable, and that they should agree to disagree on the ultimate questions of life. I think that's a reasonable position to take, but I wonder if Rand and Lewis would be satisfied with it. Do you think they would be willing to set aside their differences and work together for a common cause? Or do you think they would insist on defending their views and challenging each other's views?

Me: I think that once they recognize their common cause of a free and prosperous society in which both of their goals can be met without having to resolve the ultimate questions of life, they can work toward their common cause while civilly challenging each other's views through letters and articles. Thank you for this delightful discussion! I feel we, like my hypothetical civil Rand and Lewis, have come to a good understanding together of what can be resolved in harmony.

Bing: You're very welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did. I think you have a very thoughtful and respectful approach to exploring different views and finding common ground. I appreciate your insights and questions. Thank you for chatting with me. Have a wonderful day! 😊

Post-mortem:

That was grueling! At first I had a hard time persuading Bing there was even any common ground. This was a true test of my wit, my skills, and my reliance on the same higher power who Lewis believed in.

I think the most interesting point Bing brought up, a core concept which I didn't even touch on, was this:

"They also disagreed on the role of emotions in cognition. Rand denied that emotions could be tools of cognition; she argued that emotions are not facts and do not tell us anything about reality. She said that emotions are automatic responses to our value judgments, and that we need reason to evaluate our emotions and act accordingly. Lewis, on the other hand, insisted that emotions could be legitimate guides; he argued that emotions are not irrational impulses but natural reactions to objective values. He said that emotions can reveal truths about ourselves, others, and God, and that we need both reason and emotion to live fully human lives."

A legitimate reading of both authors' works! While Rand would have called Lewis a mystic, and rightly so, it's within his ontology to consider the conscience an echo of the Holy Spirit. Both agree, however, that emotions are not solely irrational impulses, but reactions to whatever it is in our heads which considers value. My own perspective, as the Triessentialist, is that emotions come from a variety of sources, and it's up to us to crop out those which are debased, fouled, spiteful, useless, etc. Once we do, our wills will be freer to pursue the purposes we put ourselves to.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats