LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
FOR LOTS OF LAUGHTER TELL THIS ONE TO LADIES : Can you imagine an elevated motor car fitted with wheels on the ends of long stilts. A strong gust of wind would easily blow it off balance. The high heeled shoes that women wear are similar to that car. They are one of Humanity's most daft inventions. And I don't believe that a Christian woman that has a serious interest in Stoic Wisdom based on Rational Judgement and Sound Logic would ever wear high heeled shoes. The shoes contort the feet from their natural shape, minimise stability and traction, and have the opposite effect of minimalist shoes and barefoot walking. There are various situations that women may find themselves in that clearly elucidate the error of wearing H.H. shoes. E.g. Running to catch a bus or train. Running to cross a road where there is no pedestrian crossing and there is traffic moving fast in both directions. Running for your life when a mass shooting happens. John Wayne said : Life is tough but its even tougher when you're stupid. LOL.
To summarize… Pre-Arguing: Ask “What definitions are we using for the key terms in our discussion?” to find out if you really are arguing about what you think you're arguing about. The word “God” could mean multiple things. If two parties have different definitions and are both arguing whether or not God is real, they're not on the same page and have a distorted reality of what the other person is thinking. The second thing to ask is “Under what circumstances would we change out mind?”. The reason for asking this would be to gauge if they are even open to the idea of learning something new out of the debate, or are just a Martyr for their beliefs. The Ignoramus and Clarification: “I’m not sure I completely understand your position.” is a great way to diffuse the argument by turning it I to a discussion of genuine curiosity. By asking them to clarify their position, they have to think more elaborately of their position, revealing to them the holes in their logic. “What do you mean by that?” allows your opponent to clarify their argument so you can get on the same page as them, allowing you to articulate your argument based on their subjective worldview. Causes and Reasons: Ask “What is the reasoning behind that belief?” to have them explain their logic. If they reply back with what CAUSED their belief, state the separation between reasoning and cause. If they dismiss what you say and repeatedly state what caused their worldview, it very well may be a lost cause. The Alternatives: Put yourself in the other persons shoes. Live their life for a moment and ask yourself “what information may I be missing living the life that this person has lived?” . Knowing that they may be dismissing omitted information, ask “Under What conditions would you change your mind?”. This will get them to think critically about different perspectives people could carry, which could then open their mind for change. Implications and Complications: To translate peoples beliefs into reality and hold them accountable, ask “If what you say is true, then what would be a consequence of it? Positive and negative?”. This will get them thinking down the line of their beliefs, putting it to the smell test. Questioning Questions: Question questions to clarify the reasoning behind their curiosity. Find out why you're stance is causing them distress to address their logic and emotions properly. Forgive me for the long comment. Writing this for my own sake. Hopefully someone benefits from it like I have.
Thank you, this was a great summary. Very for exterior opinions, giving this an accurate summary of the video. Though I don’t think I would have been opposed to some of your personal opinions.
Also, ask yourself WHY do you want to win debate? Question your motive first. Furthermore, AVOID arguing with morons. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and energy.
around 7:00 is key, everything seems to b said in code..but here he basically means, we cant know everything so be open to what ppl r telling u, its hugely advantageous to urself to let urself become smarter, dont b hard headed thinking u Know, always b open..
Then the internet comes along and any argument where someone knows they are loosng or of is intellectually lazy just resorts to sarcasm and insults. Good video, though 👍
Holy cow. "You can't logic someone out of a position that they haven't logiced themselves into." That sounds like something I should have known already, but I had never heared it expressed like that.
Just cuz a quote sounds cool doesnt make it true. Sometimes a good debate can help open ppl’s eyes to rationale and make them requestion their emotional beliefs
@@Itsunaiz while the statement is formulated as an absolute, I think it is safe to assume it is meant as a rule of thumb more than an unbreakable law of the universe. Of course there are instances where reason can change someones perspective if it was originally informed by emotion. But I think in the vast majority of such cases, pathos or ethos will get one further than logos alone. We are not purely rational beings. As Hume said, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."
2:22 the amount of times that we end up arguing “about nothing” bc the misunderstanding falls under the “pre-argument” part. loved how u broke down that “pre” stage
How do you think that can be achieved online. Often we find ourselves in the midst of the action online; an argumentitive "medias-en-res" if you will. Do we formalize the debate? "So before we go any further, I want to make sure that we are all speking the same language...." That sort of thing?
@@GuardDog42Jon Stuart did this very well against Bill O’rille on a particular celebrity that Bill disapproved of being allowed into the white house, given his history.
In public, It could mean gaining the most 'favour' among the people. In a simple conversation, it could mean that you're trying to impose believes, thought or simply stating the truth to a person for the benefit of the individual which ultimately helps in cartering society. Obviously, winning doesn't necessarily mean stating truth. You might just end up changing someone's perspective. But that's just what I think
That's easy, bully the opponent into conceding, undermine their credibility or get the last word. That's the rule of the internet I think? I wonder how Socrates would have handled Reddit and Twitter 😆
they weaponize words this way. An anti vaxxer wasnt a person that doesnt want a new experimantal medication forced on yhe whole population. ignore nuance to just say they are against all vaccinations and even against science itself. "but it never stopped people from being contagious!" "heretic!"
Or two people who cant even bother to look up what they are arguing about and making arbitrary factual statements about, all of which are completely inaccurate. Too much mindless repetition of "information " without actually seeing if there is any "fact "
The real secrets to winning arguments: 1. Be loud 2. Interrupt 3. Make up your own facts 4. Never let critical thinking enter into anything I learned how to argue from my parents.
@@doob. 6. Act smug and condescending smack your lips and shake your head while the opponent is making their point. It helps if you are eating/drinking something
Not defining terms is a also a good reason to just bail on a conversation. Lots of people refuse to define terms because they don't want to be nailed down and that's when I know to just leave the conversation because they just want to "win" at any cost.
"I don't like pizza." "What do you mean by 'pizza'?" "The food made of dough, tomato sauce, and mozzarella cheese." "What do you mean by 'cheese'?" "The food that's made from milk that comes from cows." "What do you mean by 'cows'?" "The farm animals we use to produce beef, milk, and cheese." "What do you mean by-" "Listen. If you make me go through this infinite loop of answering definitions for every word, I will make you drink hemlock." "..." "..." "What do you mean by-" *glug glug glug*
"you're an anti vaxxer" "What do you mean by anti vaxxer?" "You dont want one specific vax mandated into everyone because it is experimental and untested" "how does that make me against all vaxxes?" "it doesnt... this is just how propganda works"
Some people are just incapable of critical thinking. No matter how many angles you show them how to re-think their position, their previous conclusion will never change. They never reasoned their way into their belief, so there’s no reasoning them out of it.
@@GingeryGinger Critical thinking: using known and indisputable facts and building upon them without emotion or bias and being able to trace all you opinions back to first principles. Disagreements mostly happen when somebody lets emotion or bias into this process.
@@jimj9040 I'm confused. If a requirement for thinking critically is already having opinions tracable to first principles, then thinking critically on a topic you've not already traced back seems impossible to do. In this case you'd only be able to do something "think critically" if and only if, you already believed certain things to be true. By this metric Descartes isn't thinking critically when he doubts everything around him, but only after he's found something he can no longer doubt.
@@hakon_helgoy The requirement was having Facts, not opinions. In order to think critically and form opinions you have to establish something to be true in the first place in order to build upon that base. You can continue to question the factual basis of anything and you may find you were wrong when you get new information. That’s how progress works. It’s impossible to doubt everything around you at the same time, but it doesn’t hurt to re-examine your core beliefs and those things that sprout from them every now and then. Descartes indeed Isn’t engaging in critical thinking yet when he simply is observing. Doubting is just a state of not knowing if anything is true…no thinking is involved in doubting. Once he gets to… I think, therefore I am…he now has something to build upon.
This is why i am the silent student in school, observe carefully - write it down; but also remembering that i am human with my own desires and needs; its really fun how philosophy orders your mind but reminds you of personal goals.
@@homosapien4067I think what this guy means is that you’re essentially “coping with that fact that you’re pretty shit and low status in class”, making stuff about how you’re actually “secretly smart” by observing and doing “smart” stuff while keeping a low profile. Just my guess on what they meant 🤷
Excellently done. One thing I tell young people is to gather up the older copies of the Great Authors, the Thinkers, that were published pre-1960. The way these books were written is altogether different than what we see today, what I sometimes refer to as High English, and it precludes the problem of books having been selectively "abridged" to remove non-pc content. Plus, they're very much a window in time that allows us to get a sense of how the world was in The Times Before. That aside, reading the older books, with all their big words, provides you with words and concepts that are decidedly lacking today. Words allow you to understand the thoughts you might be having because they give a name to a concept. Words do have meanings, and definitions do matter.
Dude how tf you're not the biggest channel in RUclips? Please never stop making videos you're videos are actually better than 90 percent of the channels in RUclips. Dont know you just seems trustworthy.
The point about the pre-argument stage is so true. It's useful even outside of debates, as I've had small arguments with friends about nothing, because we had wrong assumptions about how the other person defined a word. Very silly.
I always thought this was why we had dictionaries. I wonder if it is more about rationalization. Nothing makes me cringe more than when I hear someone say "my truth".
Socratic irony is a rhetorical device that involves pretending to be ignorant to expose someone else's ignorance or inconsistency. It's also known as "playing dumb". Socratic irony is a technique used in the Socratic method of teaching. It can be a useful tool for leading characters and readers to correct conclusions.
An extremely annoying technique, because if the other person is not retarded, they will recognize what you are doing and get upset that you are trying to ridicule the discourse without contributing anything meaningful from your own side. What will come up in many cases in the near future is the question of the meaning of the debate: Is it even worth the time?
I'll try to condense this. It was truly a non-argument had with wife. I was, simply, telling her we won't be wasting a large amount of money that I had coming, like we had once before. Wasn't wasted as much, as not managed well. Now this second time she agreed but started saying "but... ". She started spending in her head already. In fact, one of the things was something I would highly enjoy, nevertheless, I wasn't going to start spending. It clicked in my mind, we were talking two different things, she, bringing in the emotional aspect, "if you like, wouldn't it be great to...", "don't you like... ", kind of thing. I was talking about the" financial aspects". I realized this but didn't tell her about this epiphany, looked at her and walked away. Not angry. Just walked. Later realized that if I had kept talking, I would have "lost" the debate based now upon talking emotions and not financial facts. It was a very subtle change. There was a time I would have fallen into that change without realizing. Since then, with anyone, not just her, I try to be aware that we're still on THE subject, whatever the subject may be. So, much for being condensed.
Logic and reason are two different things. Logic is going from one thing to the next likely thing. Reason is discerning the next best thing. Logic is mechanistic, reason is a value judgment faculty. Also, epistemology is key to any productive discussion. Not just "You don't know what you don't know." But "How do you know what you know?"
They sound opposing in the way you described them. Logic being a mechanistic progression of likelihoods, the other being a judgement of value about what outcome is ideal. I know they’re not exactly opposing, they’re just different tools. But for some reason my logic brain wants to oppose the “next best outcome” because it’s telling me that logic prevails over a value judgement. With that being said my reasoning brain is telling me that they should not be pitted against eachother. Have I gone insane? 😂
"The heavily armed man grabbed the child in the back seat by the scruff of the neck, shoved her into the floorboard, and leaped on top of her." (factual) "When the shooting started, the bodyguard immediately shoved his employer's young daughter into the back seat floorboard of the car and protected her body from the flying bullets with his own." (factual, but with perspective) Logic cannot differentiate between the two statements of fact. Only reason can. Miss one relevant element when applying logic, and the entire logical premise fails. If anyone doubts this, try writing a few computer programs in direct machine language. That is the trap in mistaking logic for thought.
Bravo! As a recent subscriber to your channel, I want to encourage you to keep doing what you are doing. You boldly stand in the vanguard of those of your generation that make philosophy accessible to those who only see philosophy as an unattainable luxury. My own 31 year career teaching philosophy to 18-23 year olds has taught me that every generation finds their own resolution to the challenge of seeking Reality, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. You continue that tradition brilliantly. I'm still working my way through all your posted videos, but I want to encourage you to do a video explaining your trajectory in philosophy as your life of ideas. Your generation and mine would appreciate that. --- Cordially, Professor Mark McIntire, retired
This post proves that you don't even need to know Socrates's rules for debating/arguing. BECAUSE EVERY SENTENCE SOUNDS SO CONVINCING WITH YOUR CHARISMATIC BODY LANGUAGE AND DEEP TONE EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH IT.
Hello, Unsolicited Advice! Once again another spendid and comprehensive video, you have my applause. It is wonderful to see someone as dedicated as you are to refining your philosophy and out-view on life. I digress, thank you! 😄
we were locked in our houses and fired if we refused an experimental medication that didnt stop people from being contagipus. How can people be so illogical? We still have mandated covid vax at government jobs here It doesnt stop you from being contagious. anyone that fell for yhe tyranny has zero logical capabilities. "ypu cant enter my house because you arent vaxxed" But it never stopped yhe spread!" At least 50% of people have no grasp of a childish level of logic
I really love your vids specially those that hit the delicate questions in my mind during reading novels and articles. I'd like to see your review on zapffe's pessimistic prospective.
Ah thank you! And I would need to check it out first. Edit: I’ve looked and his main work seems to be untranslated (and I sadly cannot speak Norwegian) - I’ll check out his translated stuff though
, unfortunately, it's true. You can check Thomas Ligotti's conspiracy against the human race. He mainly wrote about Zapffe's article: the last messiah and his sentiment and ideas. He adds this article to his book. I hope it will help you out.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 , unfortunately, it's true. You can check Thomas Ligotti's conspiracy against the human race. He mainly wrote about Zapffe's article: the last messiah and his sentiment and ideas. He adds this article to his book. I hope it will help you
Questioning what you mean by is used by jordan peterson often, but instead of letting them clarify what they mean peterson himself comes up with the definition.
Was it Plato or Socrates who remarked "I could not teach him, because he did not love me..."??? So if you regard your counterpart as an "opponent", you have little hope in leading them out of The Cave or error.
I agree if you can't explain something in plain English to someone not versed in that field then you don't really understand it. I personally think about something until I can explain it in a sentence so basic that it doesn't give anyone a chance to be confused it has to be so direct and simplified that you don't have to take extra time to understand or conceptualize what I'm saying to you. For example you can know what something is and be unable to define it so other people understand it I think that's why everyone failed science in high school the teacher knows what she is saying but can't make you understand it 😂
Basically just keep asking them to explain themselves. People are terrible at explaining themselves, most simply can't. Those who can, will do so illogically using fallacies, and may even contradict themselves. Either way, as long as you keep them talking, they'll show just how flawed their idea is one way or another, and usually quite quickly.
The ignoramus and clarification tactic can backfire spectacularly if used incorrectly or too often. The Bill Clinton "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," is an example. Vaush is prone to doing this when he finds himself backed into a corner. He just keeps asking for clarification on the definitions of words that everyone understands. It muddies the discussion and makes a person look like a small-minded, deliberate Sophist.
A word of caution on the point of _reductio ad absurdum_ arguments: it is very easy to fall victim to Slippery Slope fallacies when creating these arguments. Make sure that your "B" is founded in logic and *must* be true, not just that it is possible or even likely.
My dude... i just googled the term "Socratic Method" because it came up a in a random video's comment section about an hour ago. How strange... this is the first time i heard this term, and actually looked into it.
I feel Internet moved the needle from using logic and reason to just controlling the discourse, no matter how. Mods, downvotes, shame, bad faith humor, etc. It is disheartening only way to win and have social power is also to play that stupid game.
Chistopher Hitchens used to say that whenever he found himself feeling frustrated in a debate it meant he didn't know enough about the topic, so he would fix it by going and reading up on it more.
What do you say to a person when they answer that the reason they believe what they believe is because it says so in the Bible. And we know that's hard to debate with someone who continues the statement with , " because Bible is the truth". My guess is debate ends there. You can not reason with stupid person, they are the dangerous ones. Those are the words from 48 laws of power. Now I am not saying just because someone is religious is stupid. I am saying that that particular statement by Christians is stupid and usually that kind of personality traits are the ones are narrow minded about topic and not debatable people.
1. Pre arguing: Examining the underlying assumptions and key terms. What is your definition of god. ( What are your definitions of key terms ) 2. Under what circumstances you or I can be wrong ? 3. I am not sure that i completely understand your argument - not a defensive impression to clarify your argument. What do you mean by that? - approach with genuine curiosity. ( we truly know what we think ) 4. what has caused you to think that? - What are the reasons which has caaused you to believe this ? Why i believe what i believe ? -> If i had different experiences, how would i see this differently ? What perspective or alternatives you don't consider that ? -> Reductio ab surdum : Consequences of different philosophical views. If i believe this what would follow ? If it is worth accepting the view for the consequences? I am missing any questions, if yes what are they? ( Humility questions )
People have many unknown and differing associations with words and interpretations from defined meaning to then ideologies or philosophy and one "Word is all it takes. And it can get extremly diffrent results all because of theose Associations they have and hold to a idea of a Word, and even if are unaware of it themselfs, most of the time and can not see anything else. So people with very diffrening views cant see "eye to eye" with certain words, "ism's" as well. Altho with a longer form of conversation, would see that the see and are much closer than they assume.
Objective or subjective, and definitions ... “When I use a word, said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, it means exactly what I choose it to mean. The question is, said Alice, how can you make words mean so many things? The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master that is all.” Lewis Carroll
You should learn from the debates. Winning or losing won't matter in the end, because there's only one type of person who always win debates, I quote: "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." Sometimes you'll win the debate, rejoice that moment for 10 minutes after the event. Sometimes you'll lose the debate, learn a lesson for the rest of your life. It is fine to lose, guys.
Wise words! I do end up touching upon this a lot. When I talk about this topic I normally lead with “how to defeat others” and smuggle in the self-evaluation through the back door, since it’s important but people don’t tend to like looking at it
Don’t ever do this! Speak to people in a normal way. Just let the conversation happen, listen to your friend, enjoy their company. STOP TRYING TO BE JORDAN PETERSON! It’s creepy and you just don’t know enough about anything.
@@BlondieSL Yes. The uneducated too. And you can see they get trapped in their own heads all day with thoughts of what they could say the next time. Then spend a lot of time listening to pod casts only to parrot things they don't understand. You can see it is hurting them in a deep personal way.
I actually felt my sanity returning as I listened to this. Two missing ingredients in our society are critical thought and meaningful debate. (Two things that our education system has utterly failed at teaching our children). Thank you... so much gratitude for your content.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🤔 Socrates' mission was to promote critical thinking in ancient Athens by questioning beliefs people couldn't justify, showing the importance of examining one's own beliefs.* 01:11 *📚 Pre-arguing involves clarifying definitions and assumptions before debating, highlighting the need for clear communication and understanding of key terms to have productive discussions.* 03:02 *🧐 Socrates often began discussions by seeking definitions for key terms, emphasizing the necessity of agreement on definitions for a meaningful debate.* 03:43 *❓ Asking "Under what circumstances would you or I be wrong?" helps establish a basis for a good faith discussion and understand the factors motivating someone's belief.* 04:51 *🔍 The Ignoramus and Clarification technique involves admitting uncertainty about an opponent's position to open the possibility for clarifying questions, helping uncover potential flaws in arguments.* 07:38 *🔄 Considering the causes and reasons behind beliefs distinguishes between emotional/pragmatic causes and reasoned arguments, underscoring the difference between what can be challenged with logic and what cannot.* 10:43 *🤲 The Alternatives question encourages considering how different experiences might alter one's views, fostering empathy and a fuller understanding of various perspectives.* 13:32 *🎓 Implications and Consequences explores the logical follow-through of beliefs, using reductio ad absurdum to challenge positions based on their logical outcomes or inconsistencies.* 16:35 *❓❓ Questioning Questions reflects on whether all relevant inquiries have been addressed, advocating for epistemic humility and the recognition of potential oversight in discussions.* Made with HARPA AI
100k? Already if you keep uploading high-quality videos at this rate you’ll reach 200 K by this year maybe even 300 but that’s a stretch Anyways great video learned a lot (at least I think so)
I just recently read about the first dialogue of socrates in the book republic by plato and honestly this gives me much essential knowledge to think critically and ask questions with more clarity
Never explain. Your friends will understand and your enemies will not believe you anyhow. Aristotle said : The starting point is the fact, and if this is sufficiently clear there will be no need to ascertain the reason why. Aristotle said : That man is best who sees the truth in himself. Good too is he who listens to wise counsel. But who is neither wise himself nor willing to ponder wisdom is not worth a straw.
Notes: 1. Understand the other person's belief/PoV with clarity by asking them question regarding their beliefs. 2. Examine your beliefs or PoV to ensure you are actually believing in truth rather than something you heard somewhere. 3. Ensure that the reasons for beliefs are logical rather than just emotions..(sometimes you can use emotions with logic ) 4. Examining the reasons for someone's (or yourself) belief can help in identifying where the flaw in their (your) logic or reasoning is . 6. Consider the consequences if the belief is true . If the consequences are not good or contradictory then it is probably not true. 7. Question your questions . Say. Have you asked enough questions ? ; have you asked the right question ? If you do not have enough clarity then start asking question , find answers .
The title is largely to draw people in, with the hope that the Socratic questioning method will also help them examine their own beliefs - that’s why I spend half the video talking about self-examination. The debate context is largely a framing device
Disagreements about climate change are the worst. i need to vent... I hate using words like "alarmist" and "denier", but let's use those... Both are CERTAIN they are right, the alarmist HATES the denier, the denier thinks the alarmist is dumb, usually neither are truly and honestly open to changing their minds, the alarmist is rarely even willing to talk in the first place, they find themselves agreeing on the answer to most of the questions, both of them have some valid arguments, and to top it all off they both adopted their opinions from scientists and know nothing themselves, even though every alarmist you'll debate on the internet has been studying climate for 700 years apparently. I can't anymore... I NEVER talk about this with people, even though I think the solutions to climate change will be horrifying
This video fails its premise from the outset- the purpose of debate is not to win, but to create understanding between two different ways of thinking. If you approach an opportunity to learn or teach like a simple fight, you lose both opportunities.
Well, yes, I absolutely agree! The video largely goes into the ways one can interrogate their own and others’ beliefs, in order to have good faith discussions. The title is just a hook to appeal to people who might benefit from this idea
Great video. There aren't many topics that people cover that would make me want to re-watch the video a second or third time, but this one has. Would you say that a good portion of these techniques blur the line between philosophy (for wisdoms sake) and sophistry (for persuasions sake)? -Note that my question comes with the definitions I am using for these terms, to avoid the noted potential confusion
Thank you! And I do think they blur the line between the two. This is something I have changed position on over the years. I used to hold fast to Plato’s line that sophistry or rhetoric was dangerous and to be avoided, but I’ve realized it is more complex than that. If people don’t use rhetoric to present their reasoned arguments, then the reasoned arguments will just be ignored in favour of someone using rhetoric perhaps more irresponsibly. As in a lot of things, I think rhetoric and sophistry are tools I would hope to use as directed by philosophy (at least, philosophy as we have defined it here)
Most issues irl start with trying to attack or change someone elses viewpoint or actually just show how you find someone else being wrong. Instead of actually making a worthwhile argument. The argument falls even before it starts.
I personally enjoy discussions rather than debates because i know about as much as the person that im supossed to debate. So I never find the clash of thoughts to be intimidating more of a look at different perspectives
i walk around this world see things & see how people start conflicts over stupid things how they are being polarized brainwashed into hating & how easier it is to see when given facts they refuse to see & things like these are something i just can't let it be......
Very, very good 😀 you extended the time on screen of your written commentaries. You took a look at Plato's ideas (not Socrates), Epicurus said that defining your terms is a must, and you put a dash of Popper 👍 So you are an optimist, try to keep at a distance most of what you read 🖐.Try to look into the classic Roman solutions on almost every human interaction on Roman Law. The theory of the "obligations" "obligaciones" (obligatio est juris vinculus...) term not much used in the Anglo-sphere.Cheers
I don't debate/argue with someone especially on RUclips, much less on football as my potent comments are disappeared leading to people thinking that i lost. 😭why RUclips why.
Also - the Socratic dialogue (Part 1), I personally found to be useful in my mental health (I would even say, when practiced properly, it saved my life). CBT seems to stem from this practice of clarifying your own thoughts and attitudes and preconception. Once you get to the root of the notions that trigger you (and document it), and then run them through the process, it can help make the ideations more manageable and communicable when you do reach out for help.
It is difficult to discuss reality without running into contradictions, as reality is a duality that has the opposing ends of every spectrum to contradict its counter position.
I spend a lot of my free time in debates on a variety of topics. It's just so fun! This video I think will help me and my friends to sharpen our critical thinking skills.
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS:
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
FOR LOTS OF LAUGHTER TELL THIS ONE TO LADIES :
Can you imagine an elevated motor car fitted with wheels on the ends of long stilts. A strong gust of wind would easily blow it off balance. The high heeled shoes that women wear are similar to that car. They are one of Humanity's most daft inventions. And I don't believe that a Christian woman that has a serious interest in Stoic Wisdom based on Rational Judgement and Sound Logic would ever wear high heeled shoes. The shoes contort the feet from their natural shape, minimise stability and traction, and have the opposite effect of minimalist shoes and barefoot walking. There are various situations that women may find themselves in that clearly elucidate the error of wearing H.H. shoes. E.g. Running to catch a bus or train. Running to cross a road where there is no pedestrian crossing and there is traffic moving fast in both directions. Running for your life when a mass shooting happens.
John Wayne said : Life is tough but its even tougher when you're stupid.
LOL.
I guess man
He is my body forever
I like freedom please
"The unexamined life s not worth living"
But is the unlived life worthy of examination?
@@georgewarner5496 Thanks, though I think it needs a bit of modernization.
To summarize…
Pre-Arguing: Ask “What definitions are we using for the key terms in our discussion?” to find out if you really are arguing about what you think you're arguing about. The word “God” could mean multiple things. If two parties have different definitions and are both arguing whether or not God is real, they're not on the same page and have a distorted reality of what the other person is thinking. The second thing to ask is “Under what circumstances would we change out mind?”. The reason for asking this would be to gauge if they are even open to the idea of learning something new out of the debate, or are just a Martyr for their beliefs.
The Ignoramus and Clarification: “I’m not sure I completely understand your position.” is a great way to diffuse the argument by turning it I to a discussion of genuine curiosity. By asking them to clarify their position, they have to think more elaborately of their position, revealing to them the holes in their logic. “What do you mean by that?” allows your opponent to clarify their argument so you can get on the same page as them, allowing you to articulate your argument based on their subjective worldview.
Causes and Reasons: Ask “What is the reasoning behind that belief?” to have them explain their logic. If they reply back with what CAUSED their belief, state the separation between reasoning and cause. If they dismiss what you say and repeatedly state what caused their worldview, it very well may be a lost cause.
The Alternatives: Put yourself in the other persons shoes. Live their life for a moment and ask yourself “what information may I be missing living the life that this person has lived?” . Knowing that they may be dismissing omitted information, ask “Under What conditions would you change your mind?”. This will get them to think critically about different perspectives people could carry, which could then open their mind for change.
Implications and Complications: To translate peoples beliefs into reality and hold them accountable, ask “If what you say is true, then what would be a consequence of it? Positive and negative?”. This will get them thinking down the line of their beliefs, putting it to the smell test.
Questioning Questions: Question questions to clarify the reasoning behind their curiosity. Find out why you're stance is causing them distress to address their logic and emotions properly.
Forgive me for the long comment. Writing this for my own sake. Hopefully someone benefits from it like I have.
Thank you, this was a great summary. Very for exterior opinions, giving this an accurate summary of the video. Though I don’t think I would have been opposed to some of your personal opinions.
Thank you for leaving this here, I went through it aloud and it seems I have a deeper understanding now of this video, thanks to you 😊
Thank you.
Thank you 🙏
Also, ask yourself WHY do you want to win debate? Question your motive first.
Furthermore, AVOID arguing with morons. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and energy.
Your framing is extremely useful in these, thanks for all your work
Critical thinking? Are you trying to corrupt the youth or something ???
Congrats on reaching 100k!!
Are you stupid
Trying to get em to stop and think before chopping off appendages
Soc rates was woke af...
@user-qb2ze8pn9c 6 would have been. How would he do shit a sleep 😂
so.. Define what's corrupt according to you 😂
around 7:00 is key, everything seems to b said in code..but here he basically means, we cant know everything so be open to what ppl r telling u, its hugely advantageous to urself to let urself become smarter, dont b hard headed thinking u Know, always b open..
This man is GOOD! I learned quite a bit and he has a new follower!!!!
Step 1- call them a racist
Step 2- call them a sexist
Step 3- use any unused "ism's"
Step 4- scream
Step 5- repeat steps 1-4
Then the internet comes along and any argument where someone knows they are loosng or of is intellectually lazy just resorts to sarcasm and insults.
Good video, though 👍
Narrator great teacher but I wish he would slow down his speech cadence so I could selectively increase or decrease videos speed
6:40 What are these "other topics"?
Holy cow.
"You can't logic someone out of a position that they haven't logiced themselves into."
That sounds like something I should have known already, but I had never heared it expressed like that.
That is so true. I believe it was Mark Twain who said it is much easier to fool a man than to convince him that was fooled.
I believe he is the one that said "No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot"@@Bf26fge
Just cuz a quote sounds cool doesnt make it true. Sometimes a good debate can help open ppl’s eyes to rationale and make them requestion their emotional beliefs
Once the "belief system" has been tapped into...there's no moving it. Even if that was based on lies,
@@Itsunaiz while the statement is formulated as an absolute, I think it is safe to assume it is meant as a rule of thumb more than an unbreakable law of the universe.
Of course there are instances where reason can change someones perspective if it was originally informed by emotion. But I think in the vast majority of such cases, pathos or ethos will get one further than logos alone.
We are not purely rational beings. As Hume said, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."
My girlfriend must be a distant relative of Socrates, because I never win any of our debates.
Haha! I think the same about my grandma - she always comes out on top even when I think I’ve temporarily got the upper hand
🤣
Lol I always win. I'm sure she lets me. 6 years together now
Just nod your head when she talks, 😂
If you lose you lose.. if you win you still lose.. sometimes it’s best to not fight lol
2:22 the amount of times that we end up arguing “about nothing” bc the misunderstanding falls under the “pre-argument” part. loved how u broke down that “pre” stage
Ah thank you! I think it can be helpful as I have wasted so much time in the past before realising that I had just misunderstood someone's position
How do you think that can be achieved online. Often we find ourselves in the midst of the action online; an argumentitive "medias-en-res" if you will.
Do we formalize the debate? "So before we go any further, I want to make sure that we are all speking the same language...."
That sort of thing?
Doubles as a way to pin people down on what they believe so they cannot weasel out of it if the conversation turns against them.
@@GuardDog42Jon Stuart did this very well against Bill O’rille on a particular celebrity that Bill disapproved of being allowed into the white house, given his history.
This transcends politics and debates. This is communication and self awareness 101
I mean debates aren’t inherently political (not saying you necessarily said that, but it seems like a potential flaw in your logic)
@@AlliePaintsnice, I see what you did there 😉
I’m not sure I completely understand your position,
But you’re wrong
Some may even call it Philosophical :P
@@somevideos7432 TMW I Have no Idea what you're talking about because that was just a genuine statement 🤣
But what do you mean "win" a debate? 🙂
Underrated comment
Lol
Well it depends on what you mean by...
:P
In public, It could mean gaining the most 'favour' among the people. In a simple conversation, it could mean that you're trying to impose believes, thought or simply stating the truth to a person for the benefit of the individual which ultimately helps in cartering society. Obviously, winning doesn't necessarily mean stating truth. You might just end up changing someone's perspective.
But that's just what I think
That's easy, bully the opponent into conceding, undermine their credibility or get the last word. That's the rule of the internet I think?
I wonder how Socrates would have handled Reddit and Twitter 😆
Almost every online argument you ever encounter comes down to 2 people operating off of different definitions of a term.
they weaponize words this way. An anti vaxxer wasnt a person that doesnt want a new experimantal medication forced on yhe whole population.
ignore nuance to just say they are against all vaccinations and even against science itself.
"but it never stopped people from being contagious!"
"heretic!"
This is why I've stopped arguing with people online
I disagree with your understanding of the word "term" 😜
@@vesicapiscis9717 What do you mean "arguing"?
Or two people who cant even bother to look up what they are arguing about and making arbitrary factual statements about, all of which are completely inaccurate. Too much mindless repetition of "information " without actually seeing if there is any "fact "
ah yes Ive found myself: Debating with imaginary people in the shower
The real secrets to winning arguments:
1. Be loud
2. Interrupt
3. Make up your own facts
4. Never let critical thinking enter into anything
I learned how to argue from my parents.
5. Threaten you opponents with harmful actions.
@@doob. That's a good one.
Ouch, my condolences. At least you're able to make good humor out of it now, if there is a silver lining :)
6. Make them think their wrong
7. Always Invalidate their stance's in arguments
@@doob. 6. Act smug and condescending smack your lips and shake your head while the opponent is making their point. It helps if you are eating/drinking something
Not defining terms is a also a good reason to just bail on a conversation. Lots of people refuse to define terms because they don't want to be nailed down and that's when I know to just leave the conversation because they just want to "win" at any cost.
Or they may be deliberately using ambiguity, counting on the hearer assuming one thing when they really intend another.
"I don't like pizza."
"What do you mean by 'pizza'?"
"The food made of dough, tomato sauce, and mozzarella cheese."
"What do you mean by 'cheese'?"
"The food that's made from milk that comes from cows."
"What do you mean by 'cows'?"
"The farm animals we use to produce beef, milk, and cheese."
"What do you mean by-"
"Listen. If you make me go through this infinite loop of answering definitions for every word, I will make you drink hemlock."
"..."
"..."
"What do you mean by-" *glug glug glug*
Yes! Specify what the ingredients are. That will resolve much debate.
😂😂😂😂 LOL
ayooooo
Aiyoo kadavule haha ! That's hilarious 😂
"you're an anti vaxxer"
"What do you mean by anti vaxxer?"
"You dont want one specific vax mandated into everyone because it is experimental and untested"
"how does that make me against all vaxxes?"
"it doesnt... this is just how propganda works"
Some people are just incapable of critical thinking. No matter how many angles you show them how to re-think their position, their previous conclusion will never change. They never reasoned their way into their belief, so there’s no reasoning them out of it.
I think they just want to win arguments based on their emotion, and yes it will be poitnless to debate if they are in that stand
Define critical thinking for me here?
@@GingeryGinger Critical thinking: using known and indisputable facts and building upon them without emotion or bias and being able to trace all you opinions back to first principles. Disagreements mostly happen when somebody lets emotion or bias into this process.
@@jimj9040
I'm confused.
If a requirement for thinking critically is already having opinions tracable to first principles, then thinking critically on a topic you've not already traced back seems impossible to do.
In this case you'd only be able to do something "think critically" if and only if, you already believed certain things to be true.
By this metric Descartes isn't thinking critically when he doubts everything around him, but only after he's found something he can no longer doubt.
@@hakon_helgoy The requirement was having Facts, not opinions. In order to think critically and form opinions you have to establish something to be true in the first place in order to build upon that base. You can continue to question the factual basis of anything and you may find you were wrong when you get new information. That’s how progress works. It’s impossible to doubt everything around you at the same time, but it doesn’t hurt to re-examine your core beliefs and those things that sprout from them every now and then.
Descartes indeed Isn’t engaging in critical thinking yet when he simply is observing. Doubting is just a state of not knowing if anything is true…no thinking is involved in doubting.
Once he gets to… I think, therefore I am…he now has something to build upon.
This is why i am the silent student in school, observe carefully - write it down; but also remembering that i am human with my own desires and needs; its really fun how philosophy orders your mind but reminds you of personal goals.
such cope
What do you mean by cope?@@PowerK1
@@homosapien4067I think what this guy means is that you’re essentially “coping with that fact that you’re pretty shit and low status in class”, making stuff about how you’re actually “secretly smart” by observing and doing “smart” stuff while keeping a low profile.
Just my guess on what they meant 🤷
@@PowerK1says the weeb with a Gundam avatar?
@@MorteWulfe>basically said nothing but with shine
I'm blown away that RUclips would force you to censor famous paintings.
Mind boggling use of pearl-clutching
Considering their A.I. has been trained on the same famous art, it is particularly egregious and hypocritical.
They are hell bent on keeping boys from knowing what boob's like like!
It's like damn the ENTIRE screen is blurred wtf is going on 😂😂😂
I really loved the way you added in some humor here and there in this video! Made me giggle a number of times hehe
Ah thank you! I am glad!
I got so excited when I saw the notification that you posted :)
Ah thank you! That has made me smile
Great video. Glad to see the channel is growing like it should with content like this.
Thank you! I really appreciate how you’ve been there from the start
Excellently done. One thing I tell young people is to gather up the older copies of the Great Authors, the Thinkers, that were published pre-1960. The way these books were written is altogether different than what we see today, what I sometimes refer to as High English, and it precludes the problem of books having been selectively "abridged" to remove non-pc content. Plus, they're very much a window in time that allows us to get a sense of how the world was in The Times Before.
That aside, reading the older books, with all their big words, provides you with words and concepts that are decidedly lacking today. Words allow you to understand the thoughts you might be having because they give a name to a concept. Words do have meanings, and definitions do matter.
Or you can just bring a plucked chicken and shout "Behold, a man"
It's successfully ended every argument I used it in.
Haha! I love that story
Dude how tf you're not the biggest channel in RUclips? Please never stop making videos you're videos are actually better than 90 percent of the channels in RUclips. Dont know you just seems trustworthy.
Because majority of ppl are dumb as fuck and won’t get trough an intro of this video.
Most ppl Just like futile.
The point about the pre-argument stage is so true. It's useful even outside of debates, as I've had small arguments with friends about nothing, because we had wrong assumptions about how the other person defined a word. Very silly.
I always thought this was why we had dictionaries. I wonder if it is more about rationalization. Nothing makes me cringe more than when I hear someone say "my truth".
Socratic irony is a rhetorical device that involves pretending to be ignorant to expose someone else's ignorance or inconsistency. It's also known as "playing dumb".
Socratic irony is a technique used in the Socratic method of teaching. It can be a useful tool for leading characters and readers to correct conclusions.
Ah I have heard this referred to as “The Ignoramus” - it is a great position to take
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"
Kinda manipulative
An extremely annoying technique, because if the other person is not retarded, they will recognize what you are doing and get upset that you are trying to ridicule the discourse without contributing anything meaningful from your own side. What will come up in many cases in the near future is the question of the meaning of the debate: Is it even worth the time?
Or it takes a highly knowledgeable person to play the fool
I'll try to condense this. It was truly a non-argument had with wife. I was, simply, telling her we won't be wasting a large amount of money that I had coming, like we had once before. Wasn't wasted as much, as not managed well. Now this second time she agreed but started saying "but... ". She started spending in her head already. In fact, one of the things was something I would highly enjoy, nevertheless, I wasn't going to start spending. It clicked in my mind, we were talking two different things, she, bringing in the emotional aspect, "if you like, wouldn't it be great to...", "don't you like... ", kind of thing. I was talking about the" financial aspects". I realized this but didn't tell her about this epiphany, looked at her and walked away. Not angry. Just walked. Later realized that if I had kept talking, I would have "lost" the debate based now upon talking emotions and not financial facts. It was a very subtle change. There was a time I would have fallen into that change without realizing. Since then, with anyone, not just her, I try to be aware that we're still on THE subject, whatever the subject may be. So, much for being condensed.
Logic and reason are two different things. Logic is going from one thing to the next likely thing. Reason is discerning the next best thing. Logic is mechanistic, reason is a value judgment faculty.
Also, epistemology is key to any productive discussion. Not just "You don't know what you don't know." But "How do you know what you know?"
Idgi. But I wasn't allowed to "reason" as a kid. I don't have the contextual understanding of ur definition of reason
They sound opposing in the way you described them. Logic being a mechanistic progression of likelihoods, the other being a judgement of value about what outcome is ideal. I know they’re not exactly opposing, they’re just different tools. But for some reason my logic brain wants to oppose the “next best outcome” because it’s telling me that logic prevails over a value judgement. With that being said my reasoning brain is telling me that they should not be pitted against eachother. Have I gone insane? 😂
"The heavily armed man grabbed the child in the back seat by the scruff of the neck, shoved her into the floorboard, and leaped on top of her." (factual)
"When the shooting started, the bodyguard immediately shoved his employer's young daughter into the back seat floorboard of the car and protected her body from the flying bullets with his own." (factual, but with perspective)
Logic cannot differentiate between the two statements of fact. Only reason can. Miss one relevant element when applying logic, and the entire logical premise fails. If anyone doubts this, try writing a few computer programs in direct machine language. That is the trap in mistaking logic for thought.
Bravo! As a recent subscriber to your channel, I want to encourage you to keep doing what you are doing. You boldly stand in the vanguard of those of your generation that make philosophy accessible to those who only see philosophy as an unattainable luxury.
My own 31 year career teaching philosophy to 18-23 year olds has taught me that every generation finds their own resolution to the challenge of seeking Reality, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. You continue that tradition brilliantly.
I'm still working my way through all your posted videos, but I want to encourage you to do a video explaining your trajectory in philosophy as your life of ideas. Your generation and mine would appreciate that.
--- Cordially, Professor Mark McIntire, retired
Well said! Hope he sees your comment
This post proves that you don't even need to know Socrates's rules for debating/arguing. BECAUSE EVERY SENTENCE SOUNDS SO CONVINCING WITH YOUR CHARISMATIC BODY LANGUAGE AND DEEP TONE EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH IT.
Haha! Thank you! That is very kind of you to say! Though slightly terrifying as I make the most mistakes out of anyone I know
:D therefore you make the most progress than anyone you know @@unsolicitedadvice9198
There's a quote from a great movie called "Thank you for smoking": " If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
Hello, Unsolicited Advice!
Once again another spendid and comprehensive video, you have my applause. It is wonderful to see someone as dedicated as you are to refining your philosophy and out-view on life. I digress, thank you! 😄
Good topic. Today’s biggest debate revolves around what is money?
And what defines a woman 😅
0:40 - Narrator: "And then, it did."
Haha! And I will never stop being annoyed about it
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I feel you, mate!
Rock!🤘
Recently I have become a HUGE fan of LOGIC. Thanks for this video.
Oh, the irony.
we were locked in our houses and fired if we refused an experimental medication that didnt stop people from being contagipus.
How can people be so illogical?
We still have mandated covid vax at government jobs here
It doesnt stop you from being contagious.
anyone that fell for yhe tyranny has zero logical capabilities.
"ypu cant enter my house because you arent vaxxed"
But it never stopped yhe spread!"
At least 50% of people have no grasp of a childish level of logic
I really love your vids specially those that hit the delicate questions in my mind during reading novels and articles. I'd like to see your review on zapffe's pessimistic prospective.
Ah thank you! And I would need to check it out first.
Edit: I’ve looked and his main work seems to be untranslated (and I sadly cannot speak Norwegian) - I’ll check out his translated stuff though
, unfortunately, it's true. You can check Thomas Ligotti's conspiracy against the human race. He mainly wrote about Zapffe's article: the last messiah and his sentiment and ideas. He adds this article to his book. I hope it will help you out.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 , unfortunately, it's true. You can check Thomas Ligotti's conspiracy against the human race. He mainly wrote about Zapffe's article: the last messiah and his sentiment and ideas. He adds this article to his book. I hope it will help you
How do you choose which hand to exclusively gesticulate with?
The king has returned 🎉
Haha! That is very kind
Questioning what you mean by is used by jordan peterson often, but instead of letting them clarify what they mean peterson himself comes up with the definition.
Nietzche
Arrives
Elaborates
Leaves
No debate to lose
If there is no debate to have
Haha! He has already left the room with a swish of his moustache
Was it Plato or Socrates who remarked "I could not teach him, because he did not love me..."???
So if you regard your counterpart as an "opponent", you have little hope in leading them out of The Cave or error.
Love YOUR VIDEOS! wish there was more content creators like you
I agree if you can't explain something in plain English to someone not versed in that field then you don't really understand it. I personally think about something until I can explain it in a sentence so basic that it doesn't give anyone a chance to be confused it has to be so direct and simplified that you don't have to take extra time to understand or conceptualize what I'm saying to you.
For example you can know what something is and be unable to define it so other people understand it
I think that's why everyone failed science in high school the teacher knows what she is saying but can't make you understand it 😂
every minute spent on this channel is worth it, have your ever considered creating a discord server or any other discussion forum?
Basically just keep asking them to explain themselves. People are terrible at explaining themselves, most simply can't. Those who can, will do so illogically using fallacies, and may even contradict themselves. Either way, as long as you keep them talking, they'll show just how flawed their idea is one way or another, and usually quite quickly.
I'm not entering debates to win them, but to learn. People that enter debates to win them aren't great people to have a debate with.
and often the debate is actually beneficial for the audience rather than the opponent.
The ignoramus and clarification tactic can backfire spectacularly if used incorrectly or too often. The Bill Clinton "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," is an example. Vaush is prone to doing this when he finds himself backed into a corner. He just keeps asking for clarification on the definitions of words that everyone understands. It muddies the discussion and makes a person look like a small-minded, deliberate Sophist.
This is truly unsolicited advice
A word of caution on the point of _reductio ad absurdum_ arguments: it is very easy to fall victim to Slippery Slope fallacies when creating these arguments. Make sure that your "B" is founded in logic and *must* be true, not just that it is possible or even likely.
My dude... i just googled the term "Socratic Method" because it came up a in a random video's comment section about an hour ago.
How strange... this is the first time i heard this term, and actually looked into it.
Ah, well I hope the video helps!
As you’re talking through this I’m thinking back to Jordan Peterson and Destiny debating.
Jordan Peterson liked this video ,)
JP is a demented old man, his opinion is irrelevant.
I feel Internet moved the needle from using logic and reason to just controlling the discourse, no matter how. Mods, downvotes, shame, bad faith humor, etc. It is disheartening only way to win and have social power is also to play that stupid game.
Chistopher Hitchens used to say that whenever he found himself feeling frustrated in a debate it meant he didn't know enough about the topic, so he would fix it by going and reading up on it more.
I wish he would practice this when he’s trying to debate believers.
What do you say to a person when they answer that the reason they believe what they believe is because it says so in the Bible. And we know that's hard to debate with someone who continues the statement with , " because Bible is the truth". My guess is debate ends there.
You can not reason with stupid person, they are the dangerous ones. Those are the words from 48 laws of power. Now I am not saying just because someone is religious is stupid. I am saying that that particular statement by Christians is stupid and usually that kind of personality traits are the ones are narrow minded about topic and not debatable people.
Thanks for these videos! I am a philosophy major and this stuff fits into my studies nicely.
Is it a good idea to proactively explain yourself as if they questioned me in this way?
I have a very important talk planned with the school board.
Debating to win is garbage, debating to create a shared new understanding is where value is at
1. Pre arguing: Examining the underlying assumptions and key terms. What is your definition of god. ( What are your definitions of key terms )
2. Under what circumstances you or I can be wrong ?
3. I am not sure that i completely understand your argument - not a defensive impression to clarify your argument. What do you mean by that? - approach with genuine curiosity. ( we truly know what we think )
4. what has caused you to think that? - What are the reasons which has caaused you to believe this ?
Why i believe what i believe ?
-> If i had different experiences, how would i see this differently ? What perspective or alternatives you don't consider that ?
-> Reductio ab surdum : Consequences of different philosophical views.
If i believe this what would follow ?
If it is worth accepting the view for the consequences?
I am missing any questions, if yes what are they? ( Humility questions )
Just like always great content 💯
Thank you!
People have many unknown and differing associations with words and interpretations from defined meaning to then ideologies or philosophy and one "Word is all it takes. And it can get extremly diffrent results all because of theose Associations they have and hold to a idea of a Word, and even if are unaware of it themselfs, most of the time and can not see anything else. So people with very diffrening views cant see "eye to eye" with certain words, "ism's" as well. Altho with a longer form of conversation, would see that the see and are much closer than they assume.
Objective or subjective, and definitions ...
“When I use a word, said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, it means exactly what I choose it to mean.
The question is, said Alice, how can you make words mean so many things?
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master that is all.”
Lewis Carroll
Your channel is awesome.
You should learn from the debates. Winning or losing won't matter in the end, because there's only one type of person who always win debates, I quote: "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." Sometimes you'll win the debate, rejoice that moment for 10 minutes after the event. Sometimes you'll lose the debate, learn a lesson for the rest of your life. It is fine to lose, guys.
Wise words! I do end up touching upon this a lot. When I talk about this topic I normally lead with “how to defeat others” and smuggle in the self-evaluation through the back door, since it’s important but people don’t tend to like looking at it
Unless you are a politician
Don’t ever do this! Speak to people in a normal way. Just let the conversation happen, listen to your friend, enjoy their company. STOP TRYING TO BE JORDAN PETERSON! It’s creepy and you just don’t know enough about anything.
@@BlondieSL Yes. The uneducated too. And you can see they get trapped in their own heads all day with thoughts of what they could say the next time. Then spend a lot of time listening to pod casts only to parrot things they don't understand. You can see it is hurting them in a deep personal way.
I actually felt my sanity returning as I listened to this. Two missing ingredients in our society are critical thought and meaningful debate. (Two things that our education system has utterly failed at teaching our children). Thank you... so much gratitude for your content.
If you can’t beat them with science.. baffle them with bullshit
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🤔 Socrates' mission was to promote critical thinking in ancient Athens by questioning beliefs people couldn't justify, showing the importance of examining one's own beliefs.*
01:11 *📚 Pre-arguing involves clarifying definitions and assumptions before debating, highlighting the need for clear communication and understanding of key terms to have productive discussions.*
03:02 *🧐 Socrates often began discussions by seeking definitions for key terms, emphasizing the necessity of agreement on definitions for a meaningful debate.*
03:43 *❓ Asking "Under what circumstances would you or I be wrong?" helps establish a basis for a good faith discussion and understand the factors motivating someone's belief.*
04:51 *🔍 The Ignoramus and Clarification technique involves admitting uncertainty about an opponent's position to open the possibility for clarifying questions, helping uncover potential flaws in arguments.*
07:38 *🔄 Considering the causes and reasons behind beliefs distinguishes between emotional/pragmatic causes and reasoned arguments, underscoring the difference between what can be challenged with logic and what cannot.*
10:43 *🤲 The Alternatives question encourages considering how different experiences might alter one's views, fostering empathy and a fuller understanding of various perspectives.*
13:32 *🎓 Implications and Consequences explores the logical follow-through of beliefs, using reductio ad absurdum to challenge positions based on their logical outcomes or inconsistencies.*
16:35 *❓❓ Questioning Questions reflects on whether all relevant inquiries have been addressed, advocating for epistemic humility and the recognition of potential oversight in discussions.*
Made with HARPA AI
AND IF MY GRANDMOTHER HAD WHEELS, THEN SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BIKE 🗣🇮🇹🍝
100k? Already if you keep uploading high-quality videos at this rate you’ll reach 200 K by this year maybe even 300 but that’s a stretch
Anyways great video learned a lot (at least I think so)
Thank you! And I hope so! I have some big ones planned for the next couple of months
Socrates: "But why?"
*crowd goes wild*
I just recently read about the first dialogue of socrates in the book republic by plato and honestly this gives me much essential knowledge to think critically and ask questions with more clarity
Never explain. Your friends will understand and your enemies will not believe you anyhow.
Aristotle said : The starting point is the fact, and if this is sufficiently clear there will be no need to ascertain the reason why.
Aristotle said : That man is best who sees the truth in himself. Good too is he who listens to wise counsel. But who is neither wise himself nor willing to ponder wisdom is not worth a straw.
Hi there. I'm always looking for stimulating, well-honed YT content.
I've only watched this one video, but so far so good. Subbed. Cheers
Notes:
1. Understand the other person's belief/PoV with clarity by asking them question regarding their beliefs.
2. Examine your beliefs or PoV to ensure you are actually believing in truth rather than something you heard somewhere.
3. Ensure that the reasons for beliefs are logical rather than just emotions..(sometimes you can use emotions with logic )
4. Examining the reasons for someone's (or yourself) belief can help in identifying where the flaw in their (your) logic or reasoning is .
6. Consider the consequences if the belief is true . If the consequences are not good or contradictory then it is probably not true.
7. Question your questions . Say. Have you asked enough questions ? ; have you asked the right question ? If you do not have enough clarity then start asking question , find answers .
3:40...the important thing in modern argument is to make onlookers see the opposition's viewpoint as "cringe". In that way, you win the argument
well, and humbly, presented young man. thank you
Bro you still have to be right lmfao you can’t just do this and “win” if you’re just wrong. This is so small brained.
The title is largely to draw people in, with the hope that the Socratic questioning method will also help them examine their own beliefs - that’s why I spend half the video talking about self-examination. The debate context is largely a framing device
Disagreements about climate change are the worst. i need to vent...
I hate using words like "alarmist" and "denier", but let's use those... Both are CERTAIN they are right, the alarmist HATES the denier, the denier thinks the alarmist is dumb, usually neither are truly and honestly open to changing their minds, the alarmist is rarely even willing to talk in the first place, they find themselves agreeing on the answer to most of the questions, both of them have some valid arguments, and to top it all off they both adopted their opinions from scientists and know nothing themselves, even though every alarmist you'll debate on the internet has been studying climate for 700 years apparently.
I can't anymore... I NEVER talk about this with people, even though I think the solutions to climate change will be horrifying
The only solution is to do your own thing, ignore the others and sue anyone who attacks you.
This video fails its premise from the outset- the purpose of debate is not to win, but to create understanding between two different ways of thinking. If you approach an opportunity to learn or teach like a simple fight, you lose both opportunities.
Well, yes, I absolutely agree! The video largely goes into the ways one can interrogate their own and others’ beliefs, in order to have good faith discussions. The title is just a hook to appeal to people who might benefit from this idea
Trying to win debates is so pathetic. Debates are meant to expand your thinking and communication capabilities, not prove someone wrong.
Well, I agree. That’s the point of the video. The title is there to draw in people of the mindset to simply win a debate
Hay have u written any book on how to debate could buy ,
Interesting video. I'll have to utilize this method more.
Great video. There aren't many topics that people cover that would make me want to re-watch the video a second or third time, but this one has.
Would you say that a good portion of these techniques blur the line between philosophy (for wisdoms sake) and sophistry (for persuasions sake)?
-Note that my question comes with the definitions I am using for these terms, to avoid the noted potential confusion
Thank you! And I do think they blur the line between the two. This is something I have changed position on over the years. I used to hold fast to Plato’s line that sophistry or rhetoric was dangerous and to be avoided, but I’ve realized it is more complex than that. If people don’t use rhetoric to present their reasoned arguments, then the reasoned arguments will just be ignored in favour of someone using rhetoric perhaps more irresponsibly. As in a lot of things, I think rhetoric and sophistry are tools I would hope to use as directed by philosophy (at least, philosophy as we have defined it here)
!Que smart!
Most issues irl start with trying to attack or change someone elses viewpoint or actually just show how you find someone else being wrong. Instead of actually making a worthwhile argument. The argument falls even before it starts.
Reality is that on which you agree to be real.
“Belief” is such a scam. It requires one to ignore reality and trust another human over reality
That’s such a good belief. I will use your point to inform my beliefs
Read bhagavat gita. All questions will be answered .
I personally enjoy discussions rather than debates because i know about as much as the person that im supossed to debate. So I never find the clash of thoughts to be intimidating more of a look at different perspectives
i walk around this world see things & see how people start conflicts over stupid things how they are being polarized brainwashed into hating & how easier it is to see when given facts they refuse to see
& things like these are something i just can't let it be......
Very, very good 😀 you extended the time on screen of your written commentaries. You took a look at Plato's ideas (not Socrates), Epicurus said that defining your terms is a must, and you put a dash of Popper 👍 So you are an optimist, try to keep at a distance most of what you read 🖐.Try to look into the classic Roman solutions on almost every human interaction on Roman Law. The theory of the "obligations" "obligaciones" (obligatio est juris vinculus...) term not much used in the Anglo-sphere.Cheers
Fantastic Video Sir
& Great information.
You communicate clearly
& it's very easy to follow 🙏
I've Just Subscribed 🙏
Thank You.
I don't debate/argue with someone especially on RUclips, much less on football as my potent comments are disappeared leading to people thinking that i lost. 😭why RUclips why.
Also - the Socratic dialogue (Part 1), I personally found to be useful in my mental health (I would even say, when practiced properly, it saved my life). CBT seems to stem from this practice of clarifying your own thoughts and attitudes and preconception. Once you get to the root of the notions that trigger you (and document it), and then run them through the process, it can help make the ideations more manageable and communicable when you do reach out for help.
It is difficult to discuss reality without running into contradictions, as reality is a duality that has the opposing ends of every spectrum to contradict its counter position.
I spend a lot of my free time in debates on a variety of topics. It's just so fun! This video I think will help me and my friends to sharpen our critical thinking skills.