You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Plato’s Cave – Why Some People Want To Remain Prisoners
I get wrapped up so much in how cognitive bias affects politics that I forget it affects EVERYTHING you do.
"The Cave" is a form of cognitive bias:
They won't - or can't - see that other people have broken out of the cycle.
While some people can calculate self-employment on a risk/reward basis, and THEN decide to remain at a "safe" job, most people don't even bother to make the analysis; "the cave" keeps them "safe".
up to this point, this approach has worked for the majority of Americans, at least...up to now
The majority of people have always stuck with what is comfortable. If nothing too jarring happens, there is no cause for concern. I used to be the same way, but luckily I was helped out of the cave.
As you have alluded to, the allegory can be used for many things, from seeing the light of Religion, Spirituality etc to seeing the light of Cryptocurrency. I tend to interpret the allegory as meaning to investigate things properly, use critical thinking and logic to explore the nature of reality. I would suggest that Scientific principles are the most reliable tools to investigate the nature of the physical Universe. I believe this is what Plato was meaning myself.
"I used to be the same way, but luckily I was helped out of the cave."
Can you say who helped you out of the cave and in what respect this helped you "see the light" so to speak.....?
Sure thing, I wrote about it towards the beginning of this post about two months back. I also touch on it from time to time in some of my other articles.
Thanks to the internet, more people can escape the cave than ever before. I would say though, that it is just a path out of the cave. A way to see something different. Still, well researched books are some of the best ways to get your mind working.
True, logic and reasoning are the two areas that one needs to be utilizing often. Gather these ideas together and use them as a ladder to climb to a higher vantage point to see everything from a new perspective - review what you know to see if your way of thinking still works. I touched on this in my last article here.
OK, I'm replying out of order here as no reply option under your last post. Your reply does not address the questions I asked unfortunately, almost as if you just completely ignored them. You instead apparently decided to tell me (by quite condescending and presumptious allegory btw) how you drip feed information to others because people wouldn't be able to comprehend the full genius all in one bite. Now this way of thinking is indeed interesting in itself, however it does not address the questions I asked. My question was about explaining the apparent contradiction in logic/reasoning you advocate in the two other posts you made. Can you clarify this for me please.
"The crazy guy did not seek out an audience willing to listen"
But that is exactly what you have done here, otherwise you would not have written your post here. If you are saying you are just posting, but not answering, then isn't this just lecturing from some self perceived higher intellectual ground? I would rather be spoken to directly with reasoned argument, rather than simplified allegory as it causes confusion and sounds very wishy-washy and hand-wavy to me, nevermind condescending. Thanks
Was my consumption of news helping or hurting me? Was any of it actionable? The answer was no. It was absolutely hurting me. Little, if any of it was actionable. It had only led to poor decision making, usually by using fear. Overall it had been destructive to my emotional health and taken time from more productive activities.
Everyone has emotions. Everyone makes decisions. If I have time to sit down and think about something, I remove the emotional element of it to logically and rationally think it through. For instance, the news might cover a plane crash and someone that needs to travel might say they are going to drive that 800 miles instead because they are scared of their flight crashing. Now, the facts that are available show that per mile traveled, aircraft are much safer. Because of the emotion, fear, that person has made an irrational decision. I have never said to remove emotion from your life, just don't use it to come to conclusions about things you have time to think about.
Everyone has to find their own path. Everyone has to think for themselves. I only write from my own perspective, if you do not agree you do not have to read it. So by posting here I am the exact opposite from "The crazy guy did not seek out an audience willing to listen." Only those that wish to take the time to read what I write will hear what I say.
If you want a step by step guide I am sure some self-help guru will be happy to sell you a program. I am not selling anything though.
I don't think I have been condescending to anyone, ever. But again, that is your own perspective and you will think what you want to think.
OK, I read both of your other posts, the first of which seems to be contradicted by the second. Basically in the first, you are advocating not reading/watching any news - in order to make oneself feel emotionally better. (If that's the goal, then fair enough - if on the other hand, the goal is becoming better informed by critically assessing various news sources and using one's own judgement, then clearly putting one's fingers in one's ears and going "la-la-la" is not the most efficacious method of inquiry. There seems to be conflicting ideas here.
The apparent contradiction I speak of, is that in the second article, you state:
"Remove all emotion. Decisions based solely off emotion are nearly always wrong."
So why is ignoring all news sources, based on the desire to feel emotionally better not a wrong decision based solely on emotion?
This does not appear to me to be using the logic and reasoning you are advocating, maybe I have missed something and you can explain the apparent contradiction. Thanks
Imagine you are walking down the street and a 'crazy' guy starts talking to you about how people are keeping the truth from you and only showing you a version they have concocted to keep you controlled. Most people would brush this person aside and not listen to a word he was saying. But what if what the crazy guy was saying is a truth based upon him putting thousands of pieces together to complete the puzzle. The crazy guy did not seek out an audience willing to listen nor did he slowly bring forth bits and pieces and let his audience ponder them.
I write my articles in a way to show and then gently nudge willing people to look further into something. I do this by either using examples from my own journey or showing a differing perspective on a subject most take for granted. What I cannot be is the 'crazy' guy as that helps nobody. You can look around steemit for people such as these if you wish.
The news ARE the performers of the shadow show on the wall. But if I can get some to stop looking, they may realize that it is just a distraction and seek to discover things for themselves.
If you wish, you can read my reply to jaredandanissa in the 'news' article I wrote. Or this post by @krnel as he wrote a very similar article to this one yesterday and had just as many questions about it.
I use the phrase "getting whacked in the head with a clue-by-four"...you just hope there aint a nail in it!
latest reply here.....lol
OK, first off, I just want to say how much I appreciate you taking the time to engage with me in this discussion. I also appreciate your step by step guide to your thought processes/actions, I would like to continue as I think it is getting interesting now.
I am now clear of one aspect of what you were saying – do not act impetuously whilst “in the moment” under emotional stress…….right? I further agree that the decision to not watch any news can be seen as a rational choice. However, this rational choice has involved the weighing up of the positives (less emotional distress) against the negatives (being less informed) – do you agree?
On the one hand you gain some comfort and on the other you know less about what is going on “outside the cave”. You seem to have inverted this idea, so that “News” keeps you in the cave instead. This is where the main bone of contention lies between us and why I said your argument was the antithesis of the “Plato’s cave” allegory. This allegory cannot feasibly read as to suggest that we should blot out information sources about the outside world to gain some comfort, as it appears to be advocating the exact opposite – or are you saying it can?
I understand that the “shadows in the fire” possibly allude to the powers that be and falsehoods told in order to maintain the status quo. However, to me this is advocating challenging prevailing wisdom, investigating stories told, critical and free thinking etc. I’m asking how you can possibly do any of this without the raw material of news events and the stories told, you would have nothing to sift through and apply your logic/reasoning to other than from books.
Having read your list, it is clear (to me at least) that you are articulating the “ignorance is bliss” idea and there have been greater people than me warning of the dangers of accepting such thinking.
PS
I would also just add that your argument appears to include the idea that all news is bad news and does not distinguish between good or bad sources (this would entail investigation, reasoning etc).
The other problem is what about any warnings of impending danger etc? Would you rather not know about the escaped Lion last seen walking down your street?
Edit:
To sum up, I see it as you sitting in the cave with your hands over your eyes, so as not to see the shadows…..definitely not outside the cave.
I say I will reply to all comments that warrant any - and I do what I say, but this will be the last under this post. I doubt that many others here on steemit would though.
Think what you wish about me. Instead of caring/knowing/worrying about something that doesn't affect me, I can't affect, and doesn't change my life in any way I spend my energies on my family, learning new skills or information that I want, working my side hustles, or just plain relaxing.
If you saw me out for a drink with friends, you would not see my phone anywhere. I would talk and listen and not be distracted by something that doesn't matter. I am not some old person either.
When my children were born, that is when I found out their sex. Why? Because there was nothing I could do about it. Picked two names and done.
Maybe a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa causes a storm in my life after a chain of events. But it is a chain of events I cannot stop, so why worry about it? Why create mental anguish over it all? Use that for a better purpose. That purpose would be to better yourself and your life to become stronger to weather through more storms of life. Not to spend precious hours of our life where it doesn't count.
If you want to use your energies in following the latest presidential primary campaign, fine, it's your choice. All I say is there is another way. Think back to all the news you have read or watched over the years. How much of it matters now? Did your time spent watching who won what state presidential primary help you in life now? I couldn't say it would for me.
If there is a lion wandering your town, I think your reaction would be the same if you knew of it or not. But, like I said in my news article, if it is important enough you will find out anyway.
If you wish to know more about my way of thinking, you can read the writings of the stoic philosophers such as Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, or Epictetus.
“If you want to make progress, put up with being perceived as ignorant or naive in worldly matters, don't aspire to a reputation for sagacity. If you do impress others as somebody, don't altogether believe it. You have to realize, it isn't easy to keep your will in agreement with nature, as well as externals. Caring about the one inevitably means you are going to shortchange the other.” - Epictetus
Well, nice way to avoid the actual argument again....lol. Not really sure why you wrote most of that as it doesn't really address anything, whereas I was quite clear on the points I was making. Instead you show disdain and then suggest you are going out of your way to engage me, more so than anyone else would? If you don't want to argue your case, then don't I'm fine with that but don't try to make out it's because of something else.
It is also highly presumptuous and again condescending of you to just assume I have not read any philosophers works. Again, you are assuming you are more knowledgeable and I'm in need of educating. If that were the case then you should easily be able to argue your case, yet you choose not to in a high handed dismissive way......what can we make of that?
BTW, I'd say I was a Stoic, rather than an Absolutist, I'll leave that to the religious.....Voltaire is more my cup of tea though.........goodnight then.....