25 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2022
    1. It was largely the speakers of Iroquoian languages such as theWendat, or the five Haudenosaunee nations to their south, whoappear to have placed such weight on reasoned debate – evenfinding it a form of pleasurable entertainment in own right. This factalone had major historical repercussions. Because it appears tohave been exactly this form of debate – rational, sceptical, empirical,conversational in tone – which before long came to be identified withthe European Enlightenment as well. And, just like the Jesuits,Enlightenment thinkers and democratic revolutionaries saw it asintrinsically connected with the rejection of arbitrary authority,particularly that which had long been assumed by the clergy.

      The forms of rational, skeptical, empirical and conversational forms of debate popularized by the Enlightenment which saw the rejection of arbitrary authority were influenced by the Haudenosaunee nations of Americans.


      Interesting to see the reflexive political fallout of this reoccurring with the political right in America beginning in the early 2000s through the 2020s. It's almost as if the Republican party and religious right never experienced the Enlightenment and are still living in the 1700s.


      Curious that in modern culture I think of the Jesuits as the embodiment of rationalist, skeptical argumentation and thought now. Apparently they were dramatically transformed since that time.

    2. Enlightenment texts took the form of dialogues; mostcultivated an easy, transparent, conversational style clearly inspiredby the salon. (It was the Germans, back then, who tended to write inthe obscure style for which French intellectuals have since becomefamous.)

      Through the Enlightenment texts took the form of dialogues and it was the Germans of the time who began writing in a more obscure argumentative style which changed the form of the discourse.

  2. Dec 2021
    1. But Wanberg sees no contradiction in fighting gadgets with gadgets. “Can you sit down for three hours and just think about one thing deeply?” he asked me. “Because I can’t. And this device helps me.”

      This feels like it relates to the ideas of extending self-consciousness in dialogue and dialectic from the other day: https://hyp.is/bBIVHmFPEeyvFMtzXQYYWA/docdrop.org/video/EvUzdJSK4x8/

      Is being in dialogue with oneself via their writing or notes an innovation that has moved humanity forward.

    1. there's an exception ah yes indeed there is an exception to that which is largely 00:08:28 when you're talking to someone else so in conversation and in dialogue you're actually can maintain consciousness for very long periods of time well which is why you need to imagine you're talking 00:08:41 to someone else to really be able to think out a problem

      Humans in general have a seven second window of self-consciousness. (What is the reference for this? Double check it.) The exception is when one is in conversation with someone else, and then people have much longer spans of self-consciousness.

      I'm left to wonder if this is a useful fact for writing in the margins in books or into one's notebook, commonplace book, or zettelkasten? By having a conversation with yourself, or more specifically with the imaginary author you're annotating or if you prefer to frame it as a conversation with your zettelkasten, one expands their self-consciousness for much longer periods of time? What benefit does this have for the individual? What benefit for humanity in aggregate?

      Is it this fact or just coincidence that much early philosophy was done as dialectic?

      From an orality perspective, this makes it much more useful to talk to one's surroundings or objects like rocks. Did mnemonic techniques help give rise to our ability to be more self-conscious as a species? Is it like a muscle that we've been slowly and evolutionarily exercising for 250,000 years?

  3. Sep 2021
    1. We reach these conclusions using an original surveyof senior legislative staffers in Congress merged withmass public opinion data onfive policies: gun control,carbon pollution restrictions, repeal of the AffordableCare Act (ACA), infrastructure spending, and raisingthe minimum wage.

      I chose this to discuss in class because it includes some of the most bipartisan opinions in politics. These topics expect a far right/left response, but the study doesn't examine those who might be only moderately left/right and do not have a strong opinion either way.

  4. Aug 2021
    1. t. One of Moss's interesting observations is that Jesuit schools detached dialectic from grammar and rhetoric, and realigned it with philoso- phy. Protestant schools, by contrast, wanted rhetorical and dialectical analysis to run in paralle
  5. Jul 2021
    1. What happens when a politician falsely proclaims what you think, and then criticizes that proclamation? Is she really critiquing your ideas—or her own? If a writer decides what both sides of an argument are stating, is he really engaging in an argument with another writer, or is he engaging in an argument with himself?
  6. Aug 2020
    1. Saying a 40 year old caused themselves to be a virgin because of their depression, anxiety, or autismal personality belies the fact that almost everyone with depression, anxiety, and autism will have had sex at least once before turning 40 years of age.

      Or a more plausible explanation. Women don't care about the struggles those groups face in a dating market. They are like ugly relatives, an embarrassment that no one wants to talk about.

  7. Aug 2018
    1. the critique of a thing is inherent in the alternative presented

      Posing alternatives to capitalism and the nation-state simultaneously: 1) asserts the inadequacy of those institutions (a "negative" critique), and 2) asserts the superiority of the alternative being posed (a "positive" critique).

    2. to tarry with this negative

      I've always been interested in Hegel's statement about tarrying with the negative. In my mind, I think of fencing, perhaps because I conflate "tarry" with "parry."

      However, I don't think this is necessarily too far off. To tarry can be seen as staying and engaging with the negative. It seems similar to "dilly-dally" or "dawdle." Basically, it seems to me that to "tarry with the negative" is to delay oneself in the presence of the negative in order to engage with it (which I still choose to view as an intricate fencing match).

  8. Oct 2015
    1. ‘But, no, really, island time is not just about being15 minutes late because the ferry is 15 minutes late’, Tony picks up again,‘it’s state of mind, it’s a way of living your life at a slower pace’.

      Is the idea of island time dialectic?

      In the sense that the ferry's pace shapes the place (people have excuses based on island time), and the place (way of living) shapes their slower pace of living.

  9. Nov 2013
    1. dialectic, the mentor of speaking with truth and constanc

      So is he claiming here that the disticntion between dialectic and rhetoric is that dialectic speaks "with truth and constancey", and rhetoric doesn't?

    2. Here Quintilian says that the dialecti-cians lay claim to invention and judgment (which contains a large part of arrangement in the con-clusions of each argument and in syllogisms). And finally in the second chapter of the eleventh book he says that if memory belongs to any art, then it belongs completely to arrangement and order. Therefore he should say that the dialecticians could rightly claim this part also, because in dialectic that has been rightly described, one should teach the truest theory of order and ar-rangement according to the precepts of the syl-logism and method.
    3. Since rhetoric and di-alectic are general arts, they should therefore be explained in a general fashion, the one in respect to style and delivery, the other in respect to in-vention and arrangement.

      Rhetoric = style & delivery, dialectic = invention & arrangement. Is memory eliminated?

    4. dialectic, that is to the natural use of reason

      The definition of dialectic.

    5. The whole of dialectic concerns the mind and reason, whereas rhetoric and grammar concern language and speech. Therefore dialectic comprises, as proper to it, the arts of invention, arrangement, and memory

      Dialectic = logic = invention, arrangement, and memory, rhetoric = lang/speech = style and delivery.

  10. Oct 2013
    1. Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others

      People use rhetoric and dialectic all the time, when they speak and write. They can use them for many things.

    2. Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic.
    3. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially.

      The reason why rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic.

  11. Sep 2013
    1. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others

      Is this what constitutes basic conversation?

    2. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds, without distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches.

      enthymeme, syllogism, and dialectic.

    1. The persuasive arguments are (a) the example, corresponding to induction in dialectic; (b) the enthymeme, corresponding to the syllogism; (c) the apparent enthymeme, corresponding to the apparent syllogism.

      divisions of persuasive agrument

    2. Hence rhetoric may be regarded as an offshoot of dialectic, and also of ethical (or political) studies.

      of philosophical and of ethical or political studies

    1. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another.

      Socrates again showing concern with ascertaining truth (love of truth/knowledge). Interested in a dialectic, not a debate concerned with being right.

    2. that he has attended more to the art which is called rhetoric than to dialectic.

      Rhetoric vs. Dialectic. Rhetoric seems more involved with the way one speaks in this instance while dialectic encompasses dialogue and seeking to understand principles to find truth--set in opposition to each other