Quote:
Hugh Beyer wrote:
This is quite an impressive straw man you've created here, from a measly bit of moldy hay.
It's our modern problem that we no longer believe in elites. These days no one is special; no one is an expert; an encounter between teacher and student is supposed to be a "dialog" between equals where the student of two month's point of view has as much validity as a teacher's of forty years.
I want no part of that. We are all equal before God; we are all equal at the ballot box; we are all equal in the courts. On the mat? I'm sorry--I know very well where I stand. And when those I've chosen as my teachers speak on subjects within their expertise I have no need to claim an "equal" place. Because such equality is a sham.
On the web it's a little harder to figure out who has expertise and who doesn't. But it is a community--which means you know people who know people; people you trust know people they trust. And when lots of trustworthy people have all begun to trust someone (or a set of people), it pays to listen. And if you don't know any of them?
Get out more.
|
Where do you suppose I made a strawman? It was David who was talking about "level of validity". And that was what I addressed. No strawman there.
I cannot help it that David's argument is part of a long discourse and that this discourse and the conclusions that came out of it has had a major effect on history and on our modern society. I do think it is important that we are at least to a certain extend aware and knowledgeable about this.
This forum is a public place. We share this with one another on an equal basis. Very much like we would use public transport or go to a pub(it comes from the word public house if I recall correctly) or a restaurant. You would complain if you for the same money would get less then the man next to you.
Yet for some strange reason some think that for this forum one person is better qualified then an other. That there is more validity to the words of this person then the other. That there is no need to look at what this person is actually saying or how he is formulating his arguments. That the validity of his words lies in the person himself.
That leads to a slippery slope. For who is going to decide that there is more validity in the words of person A then in person B? Or if we have to decide for ourselves, how are we going to do that? Which criteria are we going to apply? Are we going to vote for it? Are we going to make a validity-list and put it on this forum? "You are not allowed to question person A! However, you may ask harsh and silly questions to person B".
On a personal level I might take a different stand. There are some teachers that I admire and who are an example to me. They do not always use dialogue to teach, or a lecture. Often they show the direction of there knowledge by example. Or in parables. Or in poetry. In humor. It takes a different kind of effort to learn from them. Here the "level of validity" does not come into play. It is a different kind of communication. And a different kind of relationship.
There is something ironic about people who are into martial arts and disavow the principles of conduct in a dialogue. The earliest people who formulated these principles were warriors. If you want to learn about solid argumentation then Socrates is one of the finest examples in history. Yet he was a well trained warrior who fought in man-to-man battles against the enemies of Athens. His student Plato was a great athlete and famous wrestling champion (his name probably refers to his broad shoulders). To name just a few, for the list is long!
So what should we say about people who call themselves martial artist but cannot deal with decent exchange of arguments? That they are whimps? (and yes, that is an argumentum ad hominem).
Tom