Tweet
Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
If that is indeed the case, I would suggest that the car mechanic should be having his conversations with someone else. S/he is likely wasting his/her time with the automotive illiterate.
How kind..
A thesis you have no reason to accept should be rejected. Outside of that, the rest of this paragraph has little/no meaning to me. It might be because I don't understand cars.
Actually, it's not. I find that it is perfectly possible to discuss things without engaging in cryptospeak. Let me tell you a story, if I may.
25 years ago, I set out on an audacious course: to build my own house. It was a ridiculous quest. I had no tools. I had no formal training. I just had a reasonable intellect, a willingness to learn, and a desire to have a particular house at a particular price. So I set out to do so. Each time I encountered something new that I knew nothing (or little) about, I used the same technique: I found someone who had done it before, hired them to do the thing with me - so long as I could participate and learn. And then I did the rest myself. I had never installed a window, so I hired someone to install the first one with me - then I installed the rest. Today, I live in the house I wanted, mostly built by my own hands. In the process, I learned that there were two types of people out there in the land of "construction." There were the people willing to share what they know - so I could be empowered to continue on. And there were the people who buried what they knew in "cryptospeak," making it virtually impossible for me to actually learn anything. The former had value to me. The latter had none. The former could take what they knew, and express it in terms I could understand. The latter lorded their knowledge like a cudgel - doing everything they could to keep me in the dark and maintain their superiority.
I knew little about cars. I have had several mechanics over the course of my life. The ones that last a very short time are the ones that continue to throw cryptospeak at me, lording their superior knowledge over me. The ones that last a long time are the ones willing to "dumb down" what they know so I can learn. Nick is my current car mechanic. He's a gem. Hell take the time to provide me information in language I can understand. Over time, I've gained a lot from his tutelage. A good student recognizes a good teacher.
I am a teacher, Matt. I understand the student who is not at my level of understanding. My area of expertise is telecommunications. I could, if I wanted to, bury my students with my knowledge. But that is not my job. My job is to help them learn. So I take what I know and reframe it in language that is at the level they can understand. I think of it as the equivalent of a Olympic-level swimmer helping a new swimmer to learn. They will never learn if they are ridiculed for not already being Olympic level - or if the teacher constantly insists they need to be at an Olympic level before they are considered worthy of conversation. As I teacher - I meet them where THEY are - I do not expect them to be where I am.
It is not incompatible with moral absolutism, Matt. The problem is that the moral absolutist cannot show that an absolute moral framework actually exists. As I have noted several times - do not add to an explanation an element unnecessary to the explanation. Moral relativism explains how moralism works. It accounts for all of its dynamics. And it does not require me to include an absolute framework I cannot show to actually exist - not to mention cannot show that there is an absolute interpretation thereof. If you're going to make a case for moral absolutism, it seems to me you have to show something fairly basic: how does moral absolutism solve a problem that moral relativism cannot? Then, perhaps, we can get somewhere.
As for the rest - I leave it to you to decide if you wish to remain in the world of cryptospeak. I am actually a ready and willing learner. But I have little patience for the teacher with an ego problem. I will learn from the teacher interested in teaching. I will reject the teacher only interested in fluffing their own ego.
How kind..
A thesis you have no reason to accept should be rejected. Outside of that, the rest of this paragraph has little/no meaning to me. It might be because I don't understand cars.
Actually, it's not. I find that it is perfectly possible to discuss things without engaging in cryptospeak. Let me tell you a story, if I may.
25 years ago, I set out on an audacious course: to build my own house. It was a ridiculous quest. I had no tools. I had no formal training. I just had a reasonable intellect, a willingness to learn, and a desire to have a particular house at a particular price. So I set out to do so. Each time I encountered something new that I knew nothing (or little) about, I used the same technique: I found someone who had done it before, hired them to do the thing with me - so long as I could participate and learn. And then I did the rest myself. I had never installed a window, so I hired someone to install the first one with me - then I installed the rest. Today, I live in the house I wanted, mostly built by my own hands. In the process, I learned that there were two types of people out there in the land of "construction." There were the people willing to share what they know - so I could be empowered to continue on. And there were the people who buried what they knew in "cryptospeak," making it virtually impossible for me to actually learn anything. The former had value to me. The latter had none. The former could take what they knew, and express it in terms I could understand. The latter lorded their knowledge like a cudgel - doing everything they could to keep me in the dark and maintain their superiority.
I knew little about cars. I have had several mechanics over the course of my life. The ones that last a very short time are the ones that continue to throw cryptospeak at me, lording their superior knowledge over me. The ones that last a long time are the ones willing to "dumb down" what they know so I can learn. Nick is my current car mechanic. He's a gem. Hell take the time to provide me information in language I can understand. Over time, I've gained a lot from his tutelage. A good student recognizes a good teacher.
I am a teacher, Matt. I understand the student who is not at my level of understanding. My area of expertise is telecommunications. I could, if I wanted to, bury my students with my knowledge. But that is not my job. My job is to help them learn. So I take what I know and reframe it in language that is at the level they can understand. I think of it as the equivalent of a Olympic-level swimmer helping a new swimmer to learn. They will never learn if they are ridiculed for not already being Olympic level - or if the teacher constantly insists they need to be at an Olympic level before they are considered worthy of conversation. As I teacher - I meet them where THEY are - I do not expect them to be where I am.
It is not incompatible with moral absolutism, Matt. The problem is that the moral absolutist cannot show that an absolute moral framework actually exists. As I have noted several times - do not add to an explanation an element unnecessary to the explanation. Moral relativism explains how moralism works. It accounts for all of its dynamics. And it does not require me to include an absolute framework I cannot show to actually exist - not to mention cannot show that there is an absolute interpretation thereof. If you're going to make a case for moral absolutism, it seems to me you have to show something fairly basic: how does moral absolutism solve a problem that moral relativism cannot? Then, perhaps, we can get somewhere.
As for the rest - I leave it to you to decide if you wish to remain in the world of cryptospeak. I am actually a ready and willing learner. But I have little patience for the teacher with an ego problem. I will learn from the teacher interested in teaching. I will reject the teacher only interested in fluffing their own ego.
Comment