3MJ3 writes:
...most people take offense to such over-analyzing of each sentence and phrase of their posts. The fact that this forum is conversational makes your methods a tad excessive.
I ask again ... what over analysis? Let's review my post, shall we? I let the vast majority of his statements slide by with no comment at all. This is hardly "over-analyzing". As a matter of fract, I did no analyzing at all. I asked eleven questions, the most important of which I asked twice -- just what exactly does he believe our purpose to be?
I pointed out a logical fallacy -- that existence in and of itself "proves" or even implies purpose.
I nudged him a bit hoping he would expound on the cryptic statement that we are "consciousness evolved".
I pointed out a second logical fallacy -- that the fact we are different than other life forms "proves" or even implies purpose.
I challenged his arbitrary assertion that if we ever make it to another planet we will wipe it out.
That's all I did. And it was done in just over a hundred and fifty words. This is "analysis"? This is "discourse"?
At what point did this forum become restricted to "conversational", by the way? I have very carefully read and re-read all the various sticky posts here from the time I have started reading here some years ago. I must have missed that part somehow.
As for the function of discourse, you should read Discipline & Punish by Michel Foucault. You can't understand it's function by looking it up in the dictionary. Foucault sees discourse as .....
Um, yeah, I can understand the function of discourse without reading what Foucault opines about the specialized jargon so beloved of various institutions. Besides, I repeat that what I was doing was not even close to "discourse". I asked for clarification and pointed out two logical fallacies. Period. I was not lecturing, intimidating, browbeating, using specialized jargon, exhibiting esoteric or specialized knowledge, using multi-syllabic words or expounding on the philosophical principles of the Greek Rationalists. I was asking simple (in many cases single-word) questions.
As an aside, note that a defendent is not at a disadvantage because the judges and lawyers use "discourse", he is at a disadvantage because of (as you point out) his lack of knowledge. The same is true of your average car owner trying to decipher a conversation between two mechanics, a medical patient trying to grasp the concept of histamine tolerance, or my mother trying to unravel the complexities of Unix.
So really, your discourse was overpowering him because it related back to a collection of knowledge with which he had no knowledge of. He probably doesn't even know the logicality of philosophical debate. You do. Hence, you hold the power of discourse.
What knowledge did I display that he lacked? (and why do you persist in presuming he knows nothing about logic, by the way?) All I did was ask him questions about the knowledge he was trying (unsuccessfully) to impart to us, fa cryin' out loud! I have no power whatsoever -- he is the one who holds all the power, since he chooses to withhold from us what our true purpose is and how he discovered it.
Here's a question that relates...why do you think philosopher's like Nietzsche could never disprove religion (spiritual)? Because religion is NOT logical. Spirituality is NOT logical. Faith is NOT logical.
Why? Because one cannot (and need not) logically disprove an arbitrary assertion. If I claim there are intelligent beings who bear a startling resemblance to camshafts inhabiting the moons of Jupiter and influencing the course of human invents through mental manipulation of a sort indetectible to our current instrumentation, you need not disprove my assertion, you need only ignore it.
However, we are straying far afield from the topic of this thread. I must note that we still remain ignorant of the true purpose of humanity.
pinky
--------------------
|