KillaNoodles
Stand Up For It
---
KillaNoodles said:Global said:KillaNoodles said:A wise, old, well-traveled philosopher, is absolutely worth lauding more than the young, apprentice philosopher. And he very well might wish to place himself in an apprentice's role.
You're conflating age with experience. You could take a 50 year old who has taken DMT once, and a 20 year old who has smoked it hundreds of times. I would tend to treat that 20 year old as a more credible source on the subject.
No, I'm not. You've taken my quote out of context. I think you're abandoning my metaphor to make your counter-point. But if you place my metaphor back into its original context, experience is mentioned explicitly. A master only becomes such through experience and study. This is the master/apprentice relationship you quoted me describing above.
So, it is wrong to suggest I'm "conflating age with experience", because I agree that experience is the philosopher's stone of life. Which is why I said the following:
KillaNoodles said:It is true that older people can be immature and younger people can be mature, but it is also true that older people have had more opportunity to gain experience.
That being said, an older person who has jumped at opportunities to live a rich and informed life, will be more mature and knowledgeable than a young person who has done the same. The younger person has had less chances to be proven wrong, less chances to recognize mistakes, and spent less time exploring the multitudes of knowledge.
By that same token, an older person who has squandered his opportunities may be well beneath a younger person who has capitalized on his own. We are in agreement, you see.
anrchy said:Take into consideration the fact the those who are old, experienced much more of the past and are less likely to be able to grasp present technologies than many youngsters.
anne halonium said:anrchy said:Take into consideration the fact the those who are old, experienced much more of the past and are less likely to be able to grasp present technologies than many youngsters.
doesnt fly for me and the maid.
weve been playing with computers since 1976
its the kids that cant make a motherboard from scratch.
we were all LED light before it was affordable by kids
same with grow teks.
hydro cactus wasnt invented by kids.
we listen to music of all ages routinely.
we vaped and used heat guns/ vape bags before most here even heard of it.
some of many examples...........
anne halonium said:alot of old people are useless, from over work , bad diet and poor education.
but not all of us. some of us are sophisticated and still hot.
->KillaNoodles said:Moral High-Ground Fallacy.
Not sure how you got there.
KillaNoodles said:[..] beneath [..]
pitubo said:a judgement with dubious moral overtones
KillaNoodles said:By that same token, an older person who has squandered his opportunities may be well beneath a younger person who has capitalized on his own.
Can we get a citation for that "linguistics follows logic," thing, and I don't mean some kind of philosophical or theoretical proposition, but rather, hard evidence.KillaNoodles said:5. Linguistics follows logic. When you use language to argue, it's useful to the understanding of the person your arguing with to codify the language in ways he can understand. Math is the universal language. Logic is mathematical. By putting what we are saying into logical terms, we can more easily understand what the two of us are trying to say. This is the fundamental precept for studying and debating philosophy [in academia]. So I am considering precisely what you say I am not! I maintain that I do not rank myself above two people, simply because I determine one to have lived a more rich life than another. I may fall beneath both of them by my same standards, between them, or above them, depending entirely on the context. The logic of the argument discounts context and presupposes on a moral judgement that judging people ipso facto leads to feeling superior over those you judge. This is a moral highground fallacy by definition. I'm not labeling something on a whim, but categorizing an illogical pathway as a biologist would categorize an organism.