Posted by john on May 15, 2002 at 11:47:48:
In Reply to: Identity vs. Philosophy posted by Bob - The Alien on May 14, 2002 at 15:37:19:
: I think that the separation of identity from philosophy is a very valuable tool. It forces you to evaluate the thoughts presented on their own ground, with no interference or bias from a author-based context.
This is interesting. And you point out a logical fallacy, that of arguing ad hominim (against the man) rather than against his ideas. However, I don't think this is possible without qualification. No idea stands alone as some pure and separate divine ideal like Plato's forms. all thoughts are bound to context of space and time and environment. Person is a valuable part of this context. So whether a person actually believes what he is saying, or is arguing from a different perspective, the argument must be evaluated in light of the person making the claim. If he is arguing from another perspective, the person must take on the personhood of one who believes what he is saying, otherwise there is no validity to the argument because the person can switch and evade poignant remarks far too easily. So if you are an alien, then you are an alien in all aspects of your worldview and if you are a human pretending to be an alien then your arguments must take the form of a true alien, otherwise the argument becomes a masquerade in which any anonymous party can switch motives, sides, and beliefs without any possibility of being called on it. If I was Bill, this is what would frustrate me. In fact this is partly why I have avoided these threads all together. It is far too easy for an anonymous character to wreak havoc logically or personally and conveniently disappear when someone tries to hold them to their statements.
No offense to Bob or any of the other psuedonyms.
: Just a couple questions to contemplate:
: Is a thought invalidated because you did not know who wrote it?
Yes, your trakc record and the respect accorded to you by others are important credentials to those of us who can't possibly evaluate every aspect of everything all the time.
: Do you give more or less credibility to concepts based on their author?
Absolutely. If I know the source, that gives me a much better idea what the argument is truly driving at. It is common to mask our motives behind other claims. Plus words tend to read the reader as everyone inturprets according to their own fears and tastes. We often put motives in people's mouths without understanding who the author is.
Does anyone remember wondereal (cav okash)? This is the prime example of what i mean. This was an anonymous identity I created as a game with a few friends. But due to a simple fluke (mispelled email address) the game went awry and by the time it ended wondereal had become a pervert stalking people on this board, a malicious girlfriend from Atlanta, a gothic girl from new york, an ex boyfriend, and a very rich hacker genius. i kid you not, these were all identities people assigned to the character. All of them created out of their own fears and misinterpretations of the actual text that was sent out. Only Bill recognized the writing style and guessed that I was the creator of the character right away. BTW public kudos to Bill. He is one of the few people i know who doesn't allow his own preconceptions to cloud his understanding of people.