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.
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