I suppose one might engage in order to clarify and learn to better express ones own views. One does not have to view it as a contest (as a sport) with winners and losers. Interesting questions are raised (motivating one to further reading or investifation. Challenges are raised (forcing better clarification and presentation). There do not have to be winners and losers (vanquished foes). In fact it is quite unlikely that any fundamental worldviews are changed. It is an intellectual exercise not a contest?
No you're not!:bigsmile:

The reasons you mentioned are also valid. I'm just poking my finger in a sore spot. For me it's part of critical philosophy to sniff out motives.

I think epistemology must address motive. What is this will-to-truth?

No more takers? I thought this would prick some vanity, people! Where are you on this?

Good reasoning leads to agreement and mutual understanding, win-win. The teacher does not conquer the student. If anything s/h does the opposite by removing chains of ignorance.

Hmmm, the question reformulated: If its not a competition for status or power, what incentive does such a teacher have to teach?

To be more genuine, I wouldn't dream of denying love, sympathy, compassion as motives. But sometimes wolves dress up as sheep, so I like to put the uglier motives out there. A person could analyze my motives for pointing out this elephant in the room. Or was it only in my room? Oh, but I doubt that.

I also thought it would be a funny title for a thread. Anyway, Deckard, good post. And I've enjoyed your other posts.

I like wolves. I also like shepherds. I am comfortable with identifying with either one. I can't really stand identifying with sheep though. Maybe the shepherds dog is a good synthesis of the wolf and the shepherd.

No worries, I get the point of this thread and I am not denying that the elephant exists. That elephant isn't always around, she comes and goes, but she is never very far away. Come to think of it, I like elephants too. I haven't seen too much of her on this forum though.

I am still interested in looking at the educational game because I think it goes to the heart of what i take to be the point of this thread.

At the start of this game the teacher is superior to the student. The student is inferior.
So the point of the educational game cannot be to establish or maintain this superiority.
That would be the point of games like silence, secrecy, lying, propaganda and brainwashing.
These games are sometimes necessary but they can hardly be called teaching.

Success in this game of education is achieved by both student and teacher when the student is raised from his/er inferior state of ignorance to that of enlightenment (in some particular area of study at least).

The benefit to the student is clear. The benefit to the teacher is less so.
I suppose the student may reciprocate and teach the other something as is the norm on forums like this (as opposed to trying to talk philosophy on facebook which I do not recommend :nonooo:). Also the teacher could be paid. Or the teacher may get a reputation for wisdom.

But suppose instead the former student just walks away without even a thank you, without paying and without ever telling anyone who he learned from. Maybe the student him/herself even forgets where he learned it from.

Does the teacher still benefit? I want to say yes but I am having a difficult time figuring out or articulating how the teacher benefits given what I have eliminated. All I can think of is the improvement of society or local community. I'm not sure if that's enough for me.

Vanity, playfulness, combativeness have long been associated with a creative spirit, often in varying degrees and seldom in a causal isolation that ignores duty, curiosity, care or concern among many other contributing forces. With each person, the admixture of motives is often complex and a matter of conjecture by others---as well as the person himself.

Also a matter of interpretation is the extent that the motives influence or find flesh, as it were, in the creative product; often the greatest and most profound creations come from crabbed and even diseased spirits (Mann often connected physical disease with creative forces). Consider the case of Beethoven, for example.

I'm smarter than me too.

D:
Maybe the teacher is identified with his or her ideas. Therefore the insemination of these ideas would be like a virus reproducing itself, but it's a friendly virus. A meme.
JG:
I agree, and psychology is a two-edged sword. We can headshrink the headshrinkers headshrinking...

I don't think you gain much social currency by winning an argument, andfor me at least it's not really an ego stroker as much as a reminder of how hard it is to turn thought into argument, and how much less clear cut the issues I have beliefs on are. So, not much.




I think a study of psychology is a necessary complement to a study of philosophy. You have to have an idea of your own biases.

Fair answers, friend. I especially agree that philosophy and psychology are complementary.

If I argue for my belief against yours, I'm implying that in this case at least "I am smarter than you."

Now "smarter" can be understood in many ways. Maybe for some it's "wittier," for other "wiser," and yet for others "more logical."

In the end it's an intellectual battlefield. Also, yes, there are other motives, that should not be reduced to this. But how much of it is the age old battle for prestige -- in one's own eyes as well as in the eyes of others?

And what does this say about our pretensions to be the truth? To say that I am the truth might actually be more truthful than most statements.

I grew around people who could strenuously argue a point, and just as easily argue the reverse. It's like having a pseudonym. Like Prothero said, it's just a method for exploring.

When conversations become personal, all that's left is to pick up undercurrents. Often I think a person would rather turn themselves inside out than explain their real agenda. In other cases, they're not aware of their real agenda. This I know from my own experience.

I agree. I've made it a point to try and figure out my real agenda. I think it's something like Smith from the matrix. Assimilate and replicate, inseminate and celebrate.

I have been posting online since (I think) january this year, first on the Dawkins forum (didn't enjoy) then the other philosophy forum, then this one. I enjoy challenging and being challenged. It has been educational. I have learned to be much less attached to views. I realise that my view is often a minority view that many will not agree with. If I can put it convincingly and not be refuted, then I feel that I have made a point well. On the other hand, I get a lot of enjoyment out of interacting with thoughtful people. And I like writing. And it's better than television. That's about it.

Terse. It made me smile.

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 05:44 AM ----------


I can relate to this. There are many reasons to show up. I had to use that thread title though. I guess the idea for me was just to get the BS out of the way. It's like the Christian concept of confessing one's sins. Wise as serpents/gentle as doves.