What is the philosophically relevant difference between consensus and appreciability on the one hand, and brainwashing on the other hand?

Possibly it is that consensus and appreciability are in a state of pristinity relative to rational discourse. Brainwashing, on the other hand, is an attempt to disrupt that pristinity with intervention.

Let me illustrate with an example: During a tutorial in the philosophy of social science, we were discussing how the means towards a non-coercive convergence of opinion was rational discourse. Student A attempted a counterexample by saying, what if you simply asked somebody to accept your own view? You weren't torturing or brainwashing them, you were simply asking them, so it wasn't coercive, yet it wasn't rational. Student B said that that was still coercive, precisely because you were not using reason to persuade the other person. Student A said that he did not think that you needed reason to be non-coercive, and student A replied that you did for him. At this point, the tutor piped up and said that you did need reason to be non-coercive. This effectively ended the discussion, simply because it was understood that this was the conclusion that we were meant to reach.

Note, however, that requesting one to change one's opinion is another method of intervening in someone's condition. Prior to that request, a person's intuition is in a state of pristinity, but following the request, that request has intervened.

Could you not say, however, that providing a reason is another method of intervention?

No, it is not, because a reason works with someone's existing intuition. It does not attempt in any way to change that intuition fundamentally.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Philosophy of Al Qaeda

People out there seem pretty interested in the philosophy of Al Qaeda. Three of my most recent hits have involved searches on those words. Mine is the top-ranked page when "Al-Qaeda" is spelled with a hyphen, and the second-ranked page when it is not. And my page was only referring to someone else's blog page in the first place! So let's talk about the philosophy of Al Qaeda. Paul Berman wrote an excellent article about it. He identifies Sayyid Qutb as the most important philosopher behind the movement. Qutb is Qaeda's intellectual hero, its "Karl Marx". In this respect, Qutb's best known work is Milestones , his Das Kapital . Berman, however, calls attention to Qutb's deeper work, the enormous In the Shade of the Koran . It is full of literary beauty and deep ideas. Just because ideas are deep, however, does not mean that they are true, and many of Qutb's ideas, Berman argues, are indeed false. Qutb opposes the separation of church and s
Read more

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Do you see any conflict between your spending considerable money on the care of your mother and your principle of spreading out wealth to help the most people? Yes. In a sense, my spending money on my mother's care is in conflict with that principle. But so is the fact that I flew back to Australia to visit my daughters at Christmas. That money could also be better spent elsewhere. I've never claimed that I live my life perfectly in accordance with those principles of sharing my money as much as I should. Interview with Peter Singer by Princeton Alumni Weekly , January 26, 2000. Is Peter Singer a hypocrite? Lonnie Lee Best, from his excellent web page on " The Psychology of Hypocrisy ", defines a hypocrite as 'a person whose actions contradict his or her stated or internal beliefs. (Or vice versa.)' From the sections on " Singer's Mother " and " Singer's Donations ", it seems clear enough that Singer falls into this cat
Read more

Commensurability 5.0

Key concept: commensurability Dictionary Definition: measurability by a common standard (Based on definition of "commensurable" in WordNet 2.0 .) Substantive Account: of a claim, measurability of its truth or falsity by a common standard that falls along a continuum of degrees, or levels , of conduciveness to non-coercive agreement. I distinguish the following four levels: Level 1 Keyword: Commonality. UPDATE 2014/12/28: Could also be triviality. Necessary and sufficient condition: Pre-existing agreement about truth or falsity of claim. Examples: "The Pope is Catholic" is at level 1 because of pre-existing agreement of its truth. "The moon is made of green cheese" is at level 1 because of pre-existing agreement of its falsity. Additionally, non-trivial claims can be at level 1 relative to a particular discussion. For example, assumptions made in a scientific paradigm are at level 1 relative to all who share that paradigm. Level 2 Keywor
Read more