Wishful Thinking

@Deckard,

Deckard;128873 wrote:

I had to look it up. I'm not sure that Aaron the Moor's final soliloquy fits or else it is too harsh. I think both shrinks and popes mean well. But maybe I missed your point.

I'm not 100% sober. Yeah, I think they mean well too. Mostly. I was just focused on Aaron getting his tormentors to swear by a God he didn't believe in himself, because he knew they did. Same as bringing in a source of authority that doesn't have authority for one's self but for the person one is trying to persuade. (Or just argue with.)

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128877 wrote:

I'm not 100% sober. Yeah, I think they mean well too. Mostly. I was just focused on Aaron getting his tormentors to swear by a God he didn't believe in himself, because he knew they did. Same as bringing in a source of authority that doesn't have authority for one's self but for the person one is trying to persuade. (Or just argue with.)

Sober or not that's a pretty good answer. Na Zdorovie! I'm drinking a bit tonight as well. Damn that wagon and the horse it road in on...wait that horse is my conscience...so just the wagon then.

Still, I think that the Pope and the shrinks have some Faith in their respective authorities or at least a fairly high opinion of it. But I can't help but imagine that Ratzinger (what a name!) as well as whatever committee within the APA has final say over the DSM, have more than their share of corrupting power. It is wishful thinking to believe that this is not so.

@Deckard,

Deckard;128884 wrote:

Sober or not that's a pretty good answer. Na Zdorovie! I'm drinking a bit tonight as well. Damn that wagon and the horse it road in on...wait that horse is my conscience...so just the wagon then.

Still, I think that the Pope and the shrinks have some Faith in their respective authorities or at least a fairly high opinion of it. But I can't help but imagine that Ratzinger (what a name!) as well as whatever committee within the APA has final say over the DSM, have more than their share of corrupting power. It is wishful thinking to believe that this is not so.

Yeah, a little less sobriety (occasionally) might even spice things up.

Yes, the mystique of psychology. The Latin jargon prevails. Health/sanity replaces righteousness. Experts as today's priests. Some of both are good and it seems like a matter of taste.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128886 wrote:

Yeah, a little less sobriety (occasionally) might even spice things up.

Yes, the mystique of psychology. The Latin jargon prevails. Health/sanity replaces righteousness. Experts as today's priests. Some of both are good and it seems like a matter of taste.

In both cases it seems to be the establishment of unquestioned authority that corrupts.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128620 wrote:

I don't think it's obvious. Make an argument, if you can. Or be persuasive.

If you ask me for an argument that the grass is green in the summertime, all I can say is, "look".

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 08:26 AM ----------

Deckard;128905 wrote:

In both cases it seems to be the establishment of unquestioned authority that corrupts.

Nothing wrong with questioning authority as long as you have a reason for doing so. And, of course, as Hume called it, a "tincture of scepticism" is always in order.

@Deckard,

Deckard;128905 wrote:

In both cases it seems to be the establishment of unquestioned authority that corrupts.

I agree. I think this is why Rorty argued for the priority of democracy to philosophy. He's a liberal, so this includes freedom of speech and press. One also thinks of Milton's Areopagitica.

Unless questioning is allowed, authority is likely to go rotten. A philospohy hardens into a dogma when it stops addressing criticism. Randians are a good example. Not that they matter in the least. But they are an example.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 05:06 PM ----------

kennethamy;128942 wrote:

Nothing wrong with questioning authority as long as you have a reason for doing so.

I'm sure the authority will tell us whether or not we "have a reason for doing so."

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;129143 wrote:

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 05:06 PM ----------

I'm sure the authority will tell us whether or not we "have a reason for doing so."

what difference would that make? And why would anyone care? How can you question without any reason? Is fact, what question would you ask?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;126347 wrote:

Is it wishful thinking to think that humans are capable of thinking that isn't wishful?

Gah..uhmm, not sure I understand you correctly.

..are capable of non-wishful thinking?

Is it that you mean?

Philosophy Forum

Wishful Thinking

Quick Links

My Account

able2know