I'm so glad this is the first result on UA-cam when I search for "intelligent discourse". This video is so important but a lot more people need to register it as a guiding principle in navigating the world these days.
I have some thoughts on these: 1. Yeah Social media has really fed into the falsehood of "every voice deserves to be listened on everything." This creates a dunning kruger effect in people that is borderline impossible to change since criticism is just a block button away to dismiss 2. Personal stories are a mixed bag. I know history and modernity both have issues where personal stories were outright made up or exaggerated to destroy people's lives. I have however met the opposite where personal stories that run contradictory really are dismissed *because* of them being personal stories. Drug use for example is something I bring up. A lot of the pro-drug people assume all addicts were just good people who got hooked on drugs where I have met more than a handful drug addicts that were probably bad people and just took the most obvious turn. 3. You said it perfectly. People look for a laconic term and use it as a weapon. 4. I think this is politically motivated. Modernism and postmodernism supplanted classical philosophy a long time ago because Classical Philosophy had core objective truths. This can bleed into number 3 actually. If you use language that comes off as a label, guess what? People are going to think you're that label regardless on false or true that is. 5. Number 1 is directly responsible for this. This is rife in mental health online circles and to people's detriment. Anybody can say "Good things are good but bad things are bad" and come off as smart or insightful and mentally ill people who for whatever reason don't have a therapist will form a parasocial relationship with these influencers and use them as free therapy. Most mental health advocates have disclaimers and sources *to* experts but the fact they need to have a disclaimer shows just how common this is. I know you are coming at it from a debate side but none of these things came up in a vaccuum.
We could add the confusion and conflation of categories to this list. I hear many people arguing past each other in intellectual discourse because they don't understand the different meanings of identical terms in a discourse. Words like "truth", "sin", "grace", "good", "love", etc do not have fixed meanings in the minds of people and we do not spend enough time defining our terms and being transparent about our presuppositions.
It seems like a majority of these problems have a reoccurring theme of "get in, get out" arguments. We WANT to spend the time debating these topics but not TO much time, because we have to go be an expert somewhere else. Great video and God bless.
Thank you. No one is an expert on all things but if you look there are experts on about any topic. You could write volumes on what I DO NOT KNOW and a small pamphlet on what I DO know. God's peace be with you.
I think your irenic and comprehensive approach to topics is why people push you to speak out of school. Ironically, the very intellectual discipline that makes your opinion so valued is also what narrows it in scope.
Excellent! I know this video is 6 years old, but I would love to have discussions with you. My field is OT, but have an interest in theology proper. I have few people to engage with.
This would throw off your 5 Item theme, but another problem with contemporary intellectual discourse is the prevalence of widely accepted myths and oversimplifications in each field that can divorce even "well informed" people from the objective facts of a debate. This is especially true in discussions with historical and political elements.
I think your critique of personal stories misses that many people are more interested in phenomenological accounts of reality. If enough people share similar stories, then we can construct a new understanding of reality based off those accounts, and this is more compelling than simply accepting some truths as given based on the assumed weight of tradition.
That is probably the case for the minority of people who are philosophically inclined to do so, but I think he is addressing the much larger group of people who use anecdotal evidence as a rhetorical device simply because it is unassailable by debate. This is an explicitly formalized strategy in many religious circles. While there are schools of thought that place great weight on subjective experience, a vast majority of people who make appeals to subjective experience are just doing it to escape the rigorous logical criticism that they have no compelling answer for and not to establish some kind of exestintial narrative consensus.
I agree on the watering down of LGBT Theology into just a campfire session of feelings, but I found the Gender Spectrum lacking the context of essence to be misinformed. I could be mistaken though as it was only a small part of video. Gender is a defined spectrum, that is observable as opposed to the gender binary. Many issue with the binary is that if you get down to it, you lose the essence, and can’t objectively discern an observable difference when confronted with an observable gender that isn’t male or female. Which is also why it’s all too common for people to assume those of us who are for the spectrum/continuum want to abolish gender, we don’t, and haven’t held that position. It’s really a small faction of more conservative leaning people amongst us who are anti-gender or anti-labels. These different essences have only been ignored, and really abolished by the Europeans. If male and female were truly the only observable essences of gender... then why do a majority of cultures have more than two? The objective evidence is staggering, and especially so given medical, and scientific professionals are coming to a consensus that agrees with us. Not quite unlike the growing scientific consensus of there being a “creator” behind this world.
Wait wait wait did you just say you're a libertarian politically? Given how much time you spent talking about tradition and stuff? I have a hard time believing that haha, just embrace the auth-right quadrant of the political compass like most traditional Christians
This is indeed, one of your best videos.👍
I'm so glad this is the first result on UA-cam when I search for "intelligent discourse". This video is so important but a lot more people need to register it as a guiding principle in navigating the world these days.
I have some thoughts on these:
1. Yeah Social media has really fed into the falsehood of "every voice deserves to be listened on everything." This creates a dunning kruger effect in people that is borderline impossible to change since criticism is just a block button away to dismiss
2. Personal stories are a mixed bag. I know history and modernity both have issues where personal stories were outright made up or exaggerated to destroy people's lives. I have however met the opposite where personal stories that run contradictory really are dismissed *because* of them being personal stories. Drug use for example is something I bring up. A lot of the pro-drug people assume all addicts were just good people who got hooked on drugs where I have met more than a handful drug addicts that were probably bad people and just took the most obvious turn.
3. You said it perfectly. People look for a laconic term and use it as a weapon.
4. I think this is politically motivated. Modernism and postmodernism supplanted classical philosophy a long time ago because Classical Philosophy had core objective truths. This can bleed into number 3 actually. If you use language that comes off as a label, guess what? People are going to think you're that label regardless on false or true that is.
5. Number 1 is directly responsible for this. This is rife in mental health online circles and to people's detriment. Anybody can say "Good things are good but bad things are bad" and come off as smart or insightful and mentally ill people who for whatever reason don't have a therapist will form a parasocial relationship with these influencers and use them as free therapy. Most mental health advocates have disclaimers and sources *to* experts but the fact they need to have a disclaimer shows just how common this is.
I know you are coming at it from a debate side but none of these things came up in a vaccuum.
We could add the confusion and conflation of categories to this list. I hear many people arguing past each other in intellectual discourse because they don't understand the different meanings of identical terms in a discourse. Words like "truth", "sin", "grace", "good", "love", etc do not have fixed meanings in the minds of people and we do not spend enough time defining our terms and being transparent about our presuppositions.
It seems like a majority of these problems have a reoccurring theme of "get in, get out" arguments. We WANT to spend the time debating these topics but not TO much time, because we have to go be an expert somewhere else.
Great video and God bless.
Jeremy Love Thanks!
Thank you. No one is an expert on all things but if you look there are experts on about any topic. You could write volumes on what I DO NOT KNOW and a small pamphlet on what I DO know. God's peace be with you.
I think your irenic and comprehensive approach to topics is why people push you to speak out of school. Ironically, the very intellectual discipline that makes your opinion so valued is also what narrows it in scope.
...and reach. 😋
Excellent! I know this video is 6 years old, but I would love to have discussions with you. My field is OT, but have an interest in theology proper. I have few people to engage with.
This would throw off your 5 Item theme, but another problem with contemporary intellectual discourse is the prevalence of widely accepted myths and oversimplifications in each field that can divorce even "well informed" people from the objective facts of a debate. This is especially true in discussions with historical and political elements.
I think your critique of personal stories misses that many people are more interested in phenomenological accounts of reality. If enough people share similar stories, then we can construct a new understanding of reality based off those accounts, and this is more compelling than simply accepting some truths as given based on the assumed weight of tradition.
That is probably the case for the minority of people who are philosophically inclined to do so, but I think he is addressing the much larger group of people who use anecdotal evidence as a rhetorical device simply because it is unassailable by debate. This is an explicitly formalized strategy in many religious circles. While there are schools of thought that place great weight on subjective experience, a vast majority of people who make appeals to subjective experience are just doing it to escape the rigorous logical criticism that they have no compelling answer for and not to establish some kind of exestintial narrative consensus.
Yeah, definitely sounds like it might be boarding on robotic level objectivity.
Tradition isn't deciding what's objective, logic and scripture is.
People may be more interested in that, but it is not reliable. For one thing, we tend not to be terribly honest about ourselves.
I agree on the watering down of LGBT Theology into just a campfire session of feelings, but I found the Gender Spectrum lacking the context of essence to be misinformed. I could be mistaken though as it was only a small part of video.
Gender is a defined spectrum, that is observable as opposed to the gender binary. Many issue with the binary is that if you get down to it, you lose the essence, and can’t objectively discern an observable difference when confronted with an observable gender that isn’t male or female. Which is also why it’s all too common for people to assume those of us who are for the spectrum/continuum want to abolish gender, we don’t, and haven’t held that position. It’s really a small faction of more conservative leaning people amongst us who are anti-gender or anti-labels. These different essences have only been ignored, and really abolished by the Europeans. If male and female were truly the only observable essences of gender... then why do a majority of cultures have more than two? The objective evidence is staggering, and especially so given medical, and scientific professionals are coming to a consensus that agrees with us. Not quite unlike the growing scientific consensus of there being a “creator” behind this world.
Wait wait wait did you just say you're a libertarian politically? Given how much time you spent talking about tradition and stuff? I have a hard time believing that haha, just embrace the auth-right quadrant of the political compass like most traditional Christians
I don't consider myself Libertarian anymore. I'm a classical conservative.
@@DrJordanBCooper okay makes more sense haha
Helpful? Yes.
You mentioned you are politically libertarian. Do you vote for the Democratic Party?
No. I've never voted for a Democrat candidate for anything.