Arrogance Arises from Living in Abstractions

[@SparkWrites]

I appreciate all your comments. I haven't responded to some because I don't see them anymore! KZbin tells me there are 15 comments and I was notified of and read these comments, but they seem to have disappeared. I'm frustrated. If anyone knows what's going on with this please let me know.

[@charlesodonnell2993]

Reality is a construct, a projection.

[@SparkWrites]

Who's doing the constructing and projecting?

[@davidbreitkopf3603]

...living in abstraction leads us away from Truth...an abstraction.

[@SparkWrites]

Yes. All language is. But I said LIVING in abstractions leads us away from truth, not USING abstractions. Language, like abstraction, is a tool. We can use them in harmful or helpful ways.

[@davidbreitkopf3603]

I am one of those so-called literary intellectuals. I do not live in the abstract. Life’s varied problems and day-to-day Gordian knots won’t allow it. I think where you have an argument is in arrogance. Intellectuals tend to be arrogant. But try to end that problem. An intellectual is arrogant because they are far better read than the average person, with greater language facilities. These days, the intellectual conversation tends to hover in the political arena. Since the advent of Trump, political discourse in this country has dropped into puerility. It’s both boring and terrifying. The literary intellectuals’ arrogance took a huge reality smack w/ Trump’s 2nd win. How could people vote for that con artist? That dictator wannabe (and maybe soon will be). Our arrogance didn’t permit ourselves to imagine yet another Trump tragedy. But here we are. On that score you’re right. As for discussions of books, poetry, art, one must seek that out in the dusty corners of life. Few people read (though those who do tend to read a lot). And quite frankly I prefer a philosophical discussion to politics any day. And for those few minutes, I am happy to live in the frozen abstractions of the ideal.

[@LevLandau3]

.

[@SparkWrites]

@@davidbreitkopf3603 I think there is plenty of arrogance to go around on both sides of the political spectrum, and they are of different types, which come from the types of abstractions each tends to live in. These abstractions (or ideas) usually get reinforced by the others we hang out with, because these others tend to already share our ideas. It would help everyone to spend more time with flesh and blood human beings who are different from us. How much time do philosophy professors spend immersed in the Amazon with the Piraha tribe, much less with, say, a janitor? Perspective is, generally speaking!, lacking on both sides.

[@davidbreitkopf3603]

Agreed. Spending time with folks who are not in or are below our social class is valuable, and not speaking condescendingly to them would be helpful. But as Bourdieu suggests in his book Distinctions, class distinction is a valuable social commodity. The middle and lower classes are always focused upwards in social status, not down. Why would an upper middle class person seek out a working class friendship?That doesn’t mean it can’t happen. But it’s not the norm.

[@paulkossak7761]

Abstractions and the material world are not mutually exclusive. We do it all the time.

[@SparkWrites]

I agree. Abstractions are helpful tools in our interaction with the material world. The danger is when we LIVE in abstractions and mistake them as either reality itself or as a goal of some kind.

[@SparkWrites]

Thanks for your comment, Paul.

[@losbones]

Atheism has no prescribed path. This might encourage the atheist to engage more in abstract thinking as they develop personal beliefs and ethical systems... Liked and subscribed. Thanks Chris

[@SparkWrites]

I think a lot of people who identify as atheist are following prescribed paths without knowing it, like an invisible Bible. They have inherited a limiting set of beliefs from Western culture and from our particular culture (and their family, etc.), but these beliefs are so fundamental that they go unquestioned. They often look to our scientists, for example, as if the latter were the high priests of ultimate reality, when in fact scientists are highly specialized in their own narrow disciplines and are part of a general culture as well as specific institutions where a true open-minded search for ultimate truth is not really encouraged, either temperamentally or financially. I write about this more in my book The Science Spell. Thank you for your comment--and subscribing! I hope to see you again.

[@johnberry1107]

Once you generalized your target to a large group - you now have a false argument. Thank you. Stay safe. Common tactic is to agree at first to the obvious - way to early.

[@SparkWrites]

Thank you, John. I was careful to say liberal, literary, intellectuals are OFTEN arrogant. I didn't generalize to the whole group. I agree that generalizations often lead us astray. I also agree that we have to pay special attention to the premises which begin any conversation.