Posted by Bob - The Alien on May 15, 2002 at 16:34:53:
In Reply to: Re: Identity vs. Philosophy posted by john on May 15, 2002 at 11:47:48:
: : 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.
There are two points here that I would like to address:
1) I totally agree that an idea has to be evaluated in context. But I disagree that the context should be pulled from the author. It should be pulled from yourself. It is self-evident that the author's ideas work in his own context. The question is whether they work in yours. You do not need to know the author's context to evaluate an idea. Of course, you may be able to use the author's context to clarify specific points, but in this case, direct questions on this board server just as well.
2) Anonymity -- Just FYI, I am not toally anonymous. At least one person on this board knows exactly who I am. I give you my word that I am not switching personas or statements. I have never posted on this board under any other guise than Bob, and I do not intend to. I maintain this persona as a point from which to discuss. It does not digress from my actual philosophies.
Even so, it brings up the same point. What if I was multiple personas who switched statements? In many arguments, it is called 'playing devil's advocate', and is a valid thought-provoking method of dialogue. The concept that I would avoid poignant questions via anonymity is a truly alien thought to me. Obviously not to others that you have dealt with. For this, I do apologize, and ask you to have a little more faith in me.
I think that your points are valid in certain contexts. But not in the one in which I am posting. And yes, I just proved myself wrong that knowing the author did change the context. It a tricky issue. My main point on the matter is that anonymous posts can break people out of their normal thought patterns and give them a way to evaluate new ideas in a new context. Even a silly one such as Bob.
: No offense to Bob or any of the other psuedonyms.
None Taken.
: 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.
Granted. My request in the situation that you do not have that context is that you evaluate my posts only if you do have the time to take them seriously without that context. If you do not have the time, so be it. I am just posting, not forcing my way into everyone's heads. If people don't want to keep up because they do know my name, I have no problem with that.
: : 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.
I find this very interesting. And somewhat unfair. If you go into a dialogue with an immediate distrust that the words presented cannot be taken at face value, then I see that as a problem. I can see it as a valid communication technique if you are in the role of a therapist/counselor, and are truly trying to get underneath the surface meanings. But is that the case in this situation?
I think that your personal context of communications is different than my own, and this is why we disagree.
Which brings me back to my original point. Ignoring who I may or may not be, do my ideas work in your context? Probably not. Does that mean that they are not worth considering? That answer is up to the readers. They may work for some people here.
And if not, I feel that the exercise of going through the thughts and analyzing them for yourself is a worthwhile effort, if for no reason other than self-awareness.
: 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.
I am not aware of this history. If this is a reminder of something that you perceived as negative, I do apologize. But again, can the varying reactions not be analyzed as a learning tool? Perhaps a debriefing is needed after such an event to gets its full value.
Until Next time...
Bob