I'm paraphrasing the late Christopher Hitchens when I say that if tomorrow the Pope were to say that he believes in God, I'd pay no attention to it, I'd just think "Oh, the Pope is doing his job again today, it's what he's supposed to do, no big deal". However, if instead the Pope were to say "You know what, I'm no longer really sure about this whole God thing", he'd have my undivided attention.
Why?
Because a conclusion like that would take the Pope enormous effort to come up with.
He'd have to battle against his own beliefs, as well as social pressure - both of which would require strenuous mental exertion from him, among other things.
This would mean that there would have to be a good reason for him to state this new belief. Fighting what you've been taught, and doing so under the risk, or even certainty, of being socially ostracized is hard, and it's never something we do lightly.
This is why I've always felt that the easiest way to spot a boring person is when they never give a chance to someone who makes a claim they find outrageous.
If I were to say democracy is mob rules and a ridiculously flawed governance system, if I'm not given a chance to even explain myself, the other person is usually very dull, and it's unlikely that he or she has any interesting thoughts regarding anything. The person doesn't have to agree with me, but I find it annoying when even a chance isn't being given.
I've always found it interesting when people make such claims, because I want to hear their reasons. No, the reasons are not always good, but I'm interested to hear.
Everytime someone has to go against the social grain to hold an opinion, it means that holding that opinion takes work and dedication, which means that the person probably has a good reason for holding said opinion.
Sure, it's possible that the person is simply crazy, so this method isn't 100% reliable, so there's that, but I acknowledge it.
I will say even this:
If a libertarian tells me taxation is theft, it's very unlikely I'm interested in listening to that person, because I've heard it so many times and it's such a cliché that it takes someone in libertarian circles little to no effort to come up with the idea that taxation is theft that he probably didn't even come up with it on his own, but instead just parrots what people around him are saying.
Whereas if a libertarian were to tell me that maybe taxation is not theft, per se, after all, that would catch my interest, because there's probably actual thought behind this conclusion. It's taken effort to challenge the grain and think on one's own.
We may have a debate about it, we may disagree, or whatever, but it's a much more interesting discussion than "Taxation is theft!" and "Yeah, it sure is!"
I find it very frustrating whenever trying to express certain unfashionable opinions, and people never even give them a chance. Like in crypto circles when you bring up bitcoin's shortcomings as an actual currency. Because that's what the fucking point was, right? To bring forth a financial revolution, free from the government and banks. It won't, though, because it can't scale for shit, and it's not even mainstream yet.
But good luck trying to have a constructive conversation about that with a bitcoin enthusiast.
The most common "retort" to someone stating an unpopular opinion is that he's just stupid, somehow. Or in some other ways ignorant.
Like as if I haven't heard all the arguments before. As if I haven't been told all the great things accomplished by taxation before, and that's why I'm against them. And now that this smart person enlightens me about stuff like universal healthcare and whatever else, I will finally realize, for the first time, that we do, indeed, need heavy taxation in our lives.
It never crosses their mind that maybe the person has heard all these things before, and despite that he still holds these views, so maybe he has a valid, thought out reason, and maybe it's worth hearing him about.
Because perhaps holding these views takes him extra work and effort, and for some reason he's willing to go the extra mile.
Something to chew on.
This post received a 10% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @thecryptofiend! For more information, click here!
With that said, here is the perfect example of your point - WhalePanda (huge Bitcoin advocate) writes an article the other day: "I was wrong about Ethereum." He had my undivided attention!
This was one of the most interesting reads I've had in a while...
https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/i-was-wrong-about-ethereum-804c9a906d36
Great read, thanks abishai. Like the point of schatten's article, contrarian viewpoints are much more interesting to read, if they are well sourced.
You only start to learn and truly develop your free, critical thinking when you receive opposite arguments as a mentally challenging gift. Great article! Following.
I agree.
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"....well said...remind someone said: "Extraordinary situation Require Extraordinary approach to handle it".....
great post to read! thank you!
Please continue posting awesome stuff like this..
here I give you my Upvote! :)
Everyone usually likes to agree with popular sentiments and opinions ,I guess its just human nature
Sometimes, the most extraordinary claims are supported by the most obvious of evidence. It's just hiding in plain sight
I am chewing.
I too like coffee.
Great post! Upvoted and followed!
One of the most useful things to come out of studying philosophy, is that if you are serious about your studies, it means being willing to hear out any argument no matter how ridiculous it may seem-- like imagining cause and effect not being real or that you may indeed be dreaming right now and under the deception of a sort of evil dream monster (which philosophical greats Hume and Descartes actually challenge their readers to do.)
Too often, too many people dismiss an idea or opinion without ever even trying to understand it. Unfortunately, if you are doing that, then you are severely limiting your growth opportunities. Perhaps more than ever, people should be studying philosophy!
People often forget that the burden of proof lies on their back. If someone wants to implement taxes then they have to argue that without taxes things are worse. Instead most people work the other way, backwards. They ASSUME that without what they have now, things will be shittier and that is far from the truth.
I feel this so much. I get a lot of "boring" responses from others. They claim I must be crazy for thinking outside of the norm. As if I haven't spent years of research in science, religion, politics, all things I feel that I understand well enough to have my own opinion towards. I don't believe what others do... I see undeniable repetition and flaws in the system and the only conclusion is to believe the bigger picture I have seen for my self by looking listening and understanding others. Yet others do not always give the same respect back and when it is something that goes against what they feel is the correct way of thnking then I am crazy, paranoid, insane..ect.
Ive come to the conclusion not everyone is ready to wake up. What others see in others is the reflection of them selves. When you try to have deep conversations and trade point of view not everyone is comfortable with seeing the other realities of things, therefore they feel .. you haven't done the research ( ..usually because they haven't) ...your ignorant and don't know what your talking about ( that shows the ignorance in themselves )
people fear extraordinary ideas. people fear the truth.
it bothers me at time, I wonder how? how can you not want to learn and see something to beyond yourself. How does it not excite you? How after everything I have said you still don't take into account that I spent time on this and maybe just maybe we should learn from each other. I get to the point I rather not speak to anyone at all about certain things feeling they wont try to grasp.
thank you for sharing this. it was something for me to think about tonight vent on. well said:)
This article perfectly sums up why I follow you @schattenjaeger, and I hope to one day meet you in person, so we can have a good debate!
OK, onto some of your points:
No shit, this would really get my attention, and in fact I have fantasised about him doing something like this. Although, as you allude to, this would ultimately be dismissed by his followers, as the devil talking, or somesuch nonsense.
OK, let's move onto Bitcoin, I've just heard you call it a shitcoin in your last article; I'm listening; why?
Whilst I don't consider myself a libertarian, I definitely hold some views that would be viewed as such. I prefer to think of myself as an independent thinker, which allows me to have, centerist views, as well as left and right wing ones too.
I do believe that some taxation is theft; however some is obviously necessary, it's striking that balance... anyway, I'm waffling, tell me why Bitcoin is shit?
Oh and let's discuss an alternative to democracy; it clearly has major faults, somebody recently shared a view with me, that it is like a ship with two captains, that absolutely have to do the opposite of the other captain. So the ship simply zig-zags its way to its destination, instead of sailing in a straight line.
So; why is bitcoin shit!?! :-)
Cg
Sorry for not replying to you earlier.
When I say BTC is a shitcoin, I mean that it's slow and expensive to use. It fails as a currency. I'm also not very optimistic that the BTC blockchain has the necessary properties for a satisfying consensus to be reached.
STEEM is already so much better than BTC. The only thing BTC has that STEEM doesn't is the price, and BTC's price has nothing to do with its properties as an actual currency. It's just an investment that people have made in order to one day dump it for FIAT.
That's my view on it.
This is a very important point that is lost to a lot of people that fancy themselves as thinkers and intellectuals.
There is nothing wrong in hearing someone out, quite the contrary it should be viewed as required or at least beneficial. Otherwise, you are just sealed inside the echo chamber you've selected for yourself in the past and not giving yourself the opportunity to grow and shed your own misconceptions (as all of us are expected to have some). Most of the time you might not change your opinion, but on the off chance you are wrong about something, you should allow some room for arguments that might help you adjust your positions.
And now about the Pope example with my thoughts here having nothing to do with your point actually. I've thought about the pope a lot before and I think I would find it extremely surprising if a person holding such a position in such an organization would actually be a believer. If the pope says "I'm not so sure about the God thing" I would be surprised by the honesty and integrity, not by the fact that he has come to this conclusion. I think it's quite likely that that's actually the case already. It's just that the person is in such a position that they would never ever share that.
Here's some evidence leading to some surprising conclusions... God exists! Proven from any diversity, difference or distinction the atheist is willing to grant exists (such as the conceptual difference between theism and atheism, or between a real tennis ball and the racket that strikes it, etc.).
https://steemit.com/onemanyproblem/@apollonius/mere-tolerance-an-answer-to-professor-dario-antiseri-s-proposal-of-moral-relativism