Not every human verbal expression falls under the category of “reasoning,” under any sensible definition of the term. Nor is it rational in any sense to treat every utterance as such; information conveyed beyond the literal meaning of words is a regular feature of human communication, and often its relevance completely overshadows that of the literal meaning. (If anything, there is such a thing as pragmatics, though I’d say ideological language presents an additional level of distance from the literal meaning than just everyday pragmatics.)
Moreover, the poster’s question was whether it’s sensible to actively challenge these assertions in the given circumstances, and I think my answer addresses that specific issue, whether or not you agree with it.
It might not be the most relevant question whether the text is crazy, but it still is, even if it’s for some impossible reason a very useful and pragmatic thing to utter. Arguing about definitions of “reasoning” isn’t relevant, just as arguing about definitions of “rational” doesn’t advance understanding of decision theory.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you really saying that a situation where invalid reasoning is a useful thing to utter falls under the category of “impossible”? (By the way, I meant “pragmatics” in the technical sense of the term.)
But more importantly: if you wish to focus on the literal meaning of these words, go ahead; certainly nobody who has the relevant knowledge can honestly disagree that the reasoning is completely invalid. Yet in this case, the intended non-literal ideological meaning expressed by these words is far more important than their literal meaning, and therefore you cannot expect to establish a discourse with the person who uttered them in terms of their literal meaning. These words were simply not intended to convey a logically and factually valid argument in the first place, no more than a casual acquaintance asking “How are you?” is interested in hearing an honest report about your ongoing life concerns.
The students should insist of firing this fount of deep wisdom to preserve their sanity.
That is true, under two critical assumptions: that the students’ primary goal in this situation is acquiring factually accurate knowledge about reality, and that the events that would be put into motion by placing such a request in practice would further their aims. Considering the reality of the contemporary Western university systems and their broader role in society—especially their parts that deal with topics of this sort—both assumptions are questionable at best.
“Sanity” is also not a good choice of word here. It normally refers to having a view of the world that is not so inaccurate that it would damage one’s instrumental goals (either by entailing self-destructive action or by strong negative signaling). In contrast, certain types of inaccurate beliefs that have no such negative instrumental consequences can have highly beneficial status- and affiliation-signaling consequences, so it can be in one’s interest to acquire them. Assuming that the beliefs promoted by the lecturer in question are in the latter category, I’m not sure if I would characterize resistance to his propaganda as “preserving one’s sanity.”
Not every human verbal expression falls under the category of “reasoning,” under any sensible definition of the term.
I can understand the text fragment cited in the post as reasoning, and according to this understanding, it’s erroneous reasoning. You are arguing about definitions of “reasoning” now, which isn’t at all relevant to my point.
Not every human verbal expression falls under the category of “reasoning,” under any sensible definition of the term. Nor is it rational in any sense to treat every utterance as such; information conveyed beyond the literal meaning of words is a regular feature of human communication, and often its relevance completely overshadows that of the literal meaning. (If anything, there is such a thing as pragmatics, though I’d say ideological language presents an additional level of distance from the literal meaning than just everyday pragmatics.)
Moreover, the poster’s question was whether it’s sensible to actively challenge these assertions in the given circumstances, and I think my answer addresses that specific issue, whether or not you agree with it.
It might not be the most relevant question whether the text is crazy, but it still is, even if it’s for some impossible reason a very useful and pragmatic thing to utter. Arguing about definitions of “reasoning” isn’t relevant, just as arguing about definitions of “rational” doesn’t advance understanding of decision theory.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you really saying that a situation where invalid reasoning is a useful thing to utter falls under the category of “impossible”? (By the way, I meant “pragmatics” in the technical sense of the term.)
But more importantly: if you wish to focus on the literal meaning of these words, go ahead; certainly nobody who has the relevant knowledge can honestly disagree that the reasoning is completely invalid. Yet in this case, the intended non-literal ideological meaning expressed by these words is far more important than their literal meaning, and therefore you cannot expect to establish a discourse with the person who uttered them in terms of their literal meaning. These words were simply not intended to convey a logically and factually valid argument in the first place, no more than a casual acquaintance asking “How are you?” is interested in hearing an honest report about your ongoing life concerns.
I don’t believe this particular case is one.
Important to whom? The students should insist of firing this fount of deep wisdom to preserve their sanity.
Vladimir_Nesov:
That is true, under two critical assumptions: that the students’ primary goal in this situation is acquiring factually accurate knowledge about reality, and that the events that would be put into motion by placing such a request in practice would further their aims. Considering the reality of the contemporary Western university systems and their broader role in society—especially their parts that deal with topics of this sort—both assumptions are questionable at best.
“Sanity” is also not a good choice of word here. It normally refers to having a view of the world that is not so inaccurate that it would damage one’s instrumental goals (either by entailing self-destructive action or by strong negative signaling). In contrast, certain types of inaccurate beliefs that have no such negative instrumental consequences can have highly beneficial status- and affiliation-signaling consequences, so it can be in one’s interest to acquire them. Assuming that the beliefs promoted by the lecturer in question are in the latter category, I’m not sure if I would characterize resistance to his propaganda as “preserving one’s sanity.”
I can understand the text fragment cited in the post as reasoning, and according to this understanding, it’s erroneous reasoning. You are arguing about definitions of “reasoning” now, which isn’t at all relevant to my point.