FILL: To Think Or Not, that is...
May. 9th, 2013 04:44 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mbarker.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
writercisesOriginal Posting 22 Feb 2013
Just some musing in the general vicinity.
Well, that's kind of interesting. Thinking about it, at one extreme we have Descartes, who decided he didn't trust any of it, and ended up starting with "cognito ergo summa" if I remember right (something like thinking, therefore existence). From there, he tried to deduce the world.
At the other extreme, we have various and sundry examples of people trusting too much in other people, the demagogues and so forth. Of course their leaders are more than willing to give their opinions about all and sundry. Whether anybody pays attention to them or not.
Indeed, the logical fallacy of ad hominem points to this very human tendency to assume that a bad person can't possibly say something good or true, and the matching mistake of thinking that good, smart, or whatever people must be correct in whatever they say, even when they are being foolish.
Unfortunately, as we know too well, good people can say idiotic things, and bad people whether we like it or not sometimes say good things.
Oddly, I think fiction may be a great training bed for thinking about this. After all, most fiction has characters that we know and like facing various problems and quandaries. Unlike the demagogues who simply announce, "This is what you should think," our characters in fiction need to be convincing, even when we can see all of their emotions and thinking.
So, yes, it is all too human to think "Well, if [insert admirable person of choice here] thinks this way, maybe I should, too?" It's also very reassuringly human to challenge that simple claim, to point out that just because someone is admirable does not mean that they've got a lock on clear thinking, reasonable statements, and so forth.
Thank you. Or maybe that should be think you, too?
Just some musing in the general vicinity.
Well, that's kind of interesting. Thinking about it, at one extreme we have Descartes, who decided he didn't trust any of it, and ended up starting with "cognito ergo summa" if I remember right (something like thinking, therefore existence). From there, he tried to deduce the world.
At the other extreme, we have various and sundry examples of people trusting too much in other people, the demagogues and so forth. Of course their leaders are more than willing to give their opinions about all and sundry. Whether anybody pays attention to them or not.
Indeed, the logical fallacy of ad hominem points to this very human tendency to assume that a bad person can't possibly say something good or true, and the matching mistake of thinking that good, smart, or whatever people must be correct in whatever they say, even when they are being foolish.
Unfortunately, as we know too well, good people can say idiotic things, and bad people whether we like it or not sometimes say good things.
Oddly, I think fiction may be a great training bed for thinking about this. After all, most fiction has characters that we know and like facing various problems and quandaries. Unlike the demagogues who simply announce, "This is what you should think," our characters in fiction need to be convincing, even when we can see all of their emotions and thinking.
So, yes, it is all too human to think "Well, if [insert admirable person of choice here] thinks this way, maybe I should, too?" It's also very reassuringly human to challenge that simple claim, to point out that just because someone is admirable does not mean that they've got a lock on clear thinking, reasonable statements, and so forth.
Thank you. Or maybe that should be think you, too?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}