Futility of a discourse based on false premises

Hi everybody,

Many times this subject has got me thinking, because we encounter it multiple times in our daily lives. I think that any discussion based on false premises is wrong to start with, detrimental to the conclusions of such discussions and other repercussions in our lives, it makes the participants in such a discussion look empty and ridiculous, and it's a waste of time.

Examples of such premises, which in my opinion are false, include:

- A common one, jealousy. It makes people think crazy things about their wives/husbands, so they start weaving such a web of non-existing events, that wreak havoc on the other party and makes them look stupid and ridiculous.

- Another one, "The Flat Earth" theory, spawning absurd conversations, such as when people reach the edge of the earth they might fall down off of it, and so on and so forth. And whole books are written based on such false assumptions.

- Or some story that the media portrays that it started in such and such way and people start discussing based on such fake information, when later turns out that things were different from the get-go. Given that we're in a conspiracy site, I can mention the weather change, where the media "experts" are blaming CO2 gases for such a change, when now there are a group of scientists that declare that there are no facts that global warming is coming from CO2 gases. Also let's not forget that certain gov branches are dumping particles in the sky, called Strategic Aerosol Injection (SAI), that are "cooling" the planet.

This type of arguments based on such premises is an immediate turn-off for me. The moment I see such a thing I stop reading a book or watching a program. It's so widespread as a phenomenon, especially in the times we're living in, that I thought it deserves some attention.

So what is your opinion about this subject, what other negative sides does it have and what other glaring examples can you offer of these false premises?

How does it make these "experts" look like when they open their mouth about a certain subject that you know the premises of which are fake?

What about the impact that such false conclusions bring into the whole society?

Agreed.

Philosophy comes from the Greek and literally means the love of wisdom. I say this because you put this in the philosophy forum, and I generally tend to ignore human philosophy because I have discerned long ago, as you have, that it is all empty speech.

What can a 50 or 60 year-old teach you? People think they are so smart, not everyone, mind you, but there are many out there that claim they will solve mankind's problems, and there are those who blindly follow them.

I see it every time an election comes around and false promises are made.

Since you asked others opinions on the matter I will present mine. I believe that human philosophy, all of it is worthless and a waste of time.

The Bible states:

"Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ."-Colossians 4:8.

A good example of one who repudiated all human tradition and philosophy was Saul of Tarsus. Tarsus, in the ancient world was renowned as a center of learning and teaching. And Saul was given the best tutelage, under the greatest teachers of his day. He studied under the Gamaliel, who was one of the founders of modern-day Judaism, and was advancing greater than any of his peers. He could have easily become one of the greatest Pharisees and Jewish leaders of his day.

But he considered all of the knowledge he learned at the feet of the learned as a lot of refuse, or garbage when he learned about the Christ.

"If any other man thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born from Hebrews; regarding law, a Pharisee;  regarding zeal, persecuting the congregation; regarding righteousness based on law, one who proved himself blameless. Yet, the things that were gains to me, I have considered loss on account of the Christ.8 What is more, I do indeed also consider all things to be loss on account of the excelling value of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have taken the loss of all things and I consider them as a lot of refuse, that I may gain Christ."-Philippians 3:4-8.

That is why I do not get involved with most threads on this website as a lot of it is a lot of political squabbling, propaganda, and gossip. None of which leads to anything beneficial.

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

Hi EdgeofParadise, thanks for your contribution. I see very well your point.

However my discussion is more specific, namely when participants discuss about something based on the false premises or assumptions. I hope to see you with additional information regarding this specific subject.

a reply to: miri2019

If you'd not brought up jealousy? I might have been able to agree with you.

Point on? Jealousy is a nasty green evil *B*.

It's such an explosive combination of insecurity, rage, circumstance, love and so on? I'm not so sure that jealousy is the one emotion we need to extract from anything 'rational'.

Love, murder, sex, preferences, regret, I could list thousands of emotions that at some point 'make sense'...

Never in my experience has jealousy ever fallen into the category of something rational, much less explainable. Especially to the person 'feeling' it.

Which brings up another point for perusal.

If you FEEL it... FEEL IT FEEL IT FEEL IT to the point 'it' can enforce your belief irrational actions can/must be taken?

Is it a lie?

Are feelings - then truth? Or lies?

a reply to: silo13

Thought-provoking question.

Do you think emotions and "feelings" are the same thing?

I ask because your first post specifically mentions the emotion jealousy, while the second poses a question about "feelings".

I am not sure they are interchangeable. Maybe they are. I think it depends on who you ask, and in these matters it seems like few agree. I take "feelings" to refer to a built-in faculty of inquiry linked to our subconscious mind, while emotions pertain more to response to stimuli.

But anyways, if we're not concerned with splitting those hairs, my response is: emotions do not have "truth values" unto themselves. It is a habit of the mind that transmutes emotional experience into language, and it is the ineluctable interplay between essence and accident that create habits of the mind.

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: miri2019

If you'd not brought up jealousy? I might have been able to agree with you.

Point on? Jealousy is a nasty green evil *B*.

It's such an explosive combination of insecurity, rage, circumstance, love and so on? I'm not so sure that jealousy is the one emotion we need to extract from anything 'rational'.

Love, murder, sex, preferences, regret, I could list thousands of emotions that at some point 'make sense'...

Never in my experience has jealousy ever fallen into the category of something rational, much less explainable. Especially to the person 'feeling' it.

Jealousy was critical in evolution.
It gets us fired up to destroy potential rivals of the attention of our mates.

The passive ape who was indifferent to others sniffing around didn't get to pass on his genes.
The jealous ape who had no problem fighting off and killing others did, and did plenty.

a reply to: silo13

Hi silo13, I just brought up jealousy just as an example, it could have been anything actually. My point was more of what happens when two or more parties are discussing on the wrong assumptions to begin with, so it's more of a logical problem associated with its own consequences.

This is what I wanted to base our discussions in. I hope I made myself clear.

Thank you.