GOING INTO OVERDRIVE
Challenge Accepted
I can’t explain how much I have slacked this month. The laziness just followed the fatigue fast enough. But today, the lethargy ends.
Hello reader, happy Sunday. You are reading Busyminds Newsletter, a publication for self motivated learners and a map for dilettantes. As an enthusiast, this is where I share some of my best ideas and concepts. Today, I am declaring a challenge.
Since the start of April, I have found myself a victim of an unusual lethargy that has kept me from putting in my best to reading, writing, and proper learning.
To solve this, I have decided to publish consistently this week. I will publish at least once a day, and it will not be limited to once a day. I will be going into overdrive. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
Before we feast, please subscribe and ensure to check your email for consequent posts
To start with, I will share some rapid fire thoughts I documented somewhere. Here we go.
“When you cite a text in philosophy (or quote a philosopher), you are not necessarily doing so because it is true or that you believe it to be true. Instead, you are quoting someone who has said something you would like to say in clearer and more enduring ways.”
Let me explain. I love having conversations (debates) with people. Although I don’t believe that things change by debating or we change people’s minds by debating, I value them for helping to unweave the complexities of the subject. So, anything that helps us move forward in getting to the truth in a debate context is welcome no matter how true or false they are. However, there is a common blunder we all fall for. And this blunder involves quoting or citing authors and scholars who have contributed to the subject matter.
In seeking to make our cases more cogent and rigorous, we must appeal to earlier contributors to help us make our cases. And it is something one must do to show that they have a good enough grasp of the subject matter. The mistake comes however when we make fallacious appeals to authority to say that what we have is the better case.
Argumentum ad verecundiam is the appeal to authority fallacy. When in an argument, you need to present clear evidence that is supposed to convince your interlocutor and thrust your point forward. However, when you choose to quote an authority (whether expert or not), on the belief that such authority is replacement for truth, that is not evidence in the best sense.
For a clear example, here is what Carl Sagan has to say about arguments from authority in science:
“One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.”
To commit this blunder like everyone else, is to say that what Carl Sagan said is true because it is Carl Sagan who said it. The right approach however is to take Carl Sagan’s statement itself and scrutinize it like it is any other person such as your nosy neighbor who said it.
Oftentimes, debaters wish to silence their co-debater by quoting a big name, a respected authority. They silently (sometimes not so silently) hope that quotes from a mighty name will earn them the final word on the subject. And the horror in their tone amuses me when the co-debater upon hearing the big name refuses to stand down. Then the next moment, they start calling their interlocutor dumb or unread because they refused to stand down after hearing the big name. (Ok bro, what if I think Karl Marx got it wrong? Or even Plato. Who said Plato knows all things?)
If you expect anyone to swallow your position because you are quoting Socrates or Heraclitus or whoever, you have exaggerated what you know and chosen to undermine what the other person knows. Even worse, you are a regurgitator not a critical thinker. There are many regurgitators who prance around as critical thinkers (I don’t even like that term anymore).
And so I revert to the opening statement that “when you cite a text in philosophy (or quote a philosopher), you are not necessarily doing so because it is true or that you believe it to be true. Instead, you are quoting someone who has said something you would like to say in clearer and more enduring ways.”
Look at earlier contributors as talented, well trained, and even more experienced peers. I often say that we resonate with written texts that we already conceive but have not found the best words to describe them. When we find those texts and authors who have then articulated those words finely enough, we jump on them with delight. Once again, view your heroes as exceptional corroborators rather than as arbiters of truth.
With this, I begin a week of publishing everyday. Help me on this recovery by liking, commenting, telling me what you think, and sharing with likeminds. See you tomorrow.