Skip to main content

The Dynamism of Thought

One of the most tremendous errors within the realm of debate has been the failure of individuals to examine the principles which guide their opponent's or proponent's expressed opinions.

What's more, there is often a cloud of ignorance cast upon the unstated, oft-undiscovered and -untouched capacity for individuals to hold steadfastly to principle in a consistent, universal sense or otherwise in manners which operate to his usually-unexplained advantage.

In this sense then, one is capable of entertaining his theoretical ideals while living out, or according to, another set altogether.

Beyond this, there is seemingly a dynamism of belief whereby individuals may adjust their rules, as a function of philosophical maturity, receipt of new information, or a change of circumstances.

Therefore, one's speech is often translated too literally, too rigidly, with the false assumption of complete rationality, or rather the assumption of knowledge, experience or exposure which may not apply to the given orator.



In this sense once again, the assessor finds that not all opinions are equal or wholly valid, that each of them operates from a wobbly structure of incomplete or dogmatic understandings.

Beyond this recurring failing, the presenter often falls victim to his own limited vocabulary, struggling across radii of deviations from the most cogent characterization of his own thoughts.

And all the while, the speaker appears convicted while moving toward a future which may eventually realize a reversal of projected thought, but by then the social damage will have already been done.

For this very reason, it is important to evaluate a person's ideas before being distracted by their packaging or the physical apparatus which bears them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f