Logically speaking, if the doctrine that befell me involved its enforcement upon others, I would have to do so. However, from the outside this looks simply like a memetic virus, and I’d use rationality to take it apart first. If the doctrine rejects rationality, it is suspicious.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @likeplastic_
Here, rationality implies that you derive epistemology (confidence equals weight of evidence), semantics (what does it mean to mean something), nature of belief vs. hypothesis vs. faith etc. so you get a toolkit to sandbox and analyze arbitrary doctrines without getting infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @gremlinboots @likeplastic_
Slightly untrue things may not help to protect you against very convincing things.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @gremlinboots @likeplastic_
How would you tell, without looking at the hooks that make ideas convincing? Think of fear, hope jealousy, existential dread, love, loneliness, pain, vanity...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @gremlinboots @likeplastic_
So, emotion is confused, therefore emotion “good delusion” indicates that you are not confused? :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Good/bad give rise to a system of meaning that most people find more powerful and convincing than true/false.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- 10 more replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.