Thread: The need to Be Right

It sounds like you are fringing on pointing out the nature of aporia.

Aporia: The process of doubt from, or the consequence of, a discussion or debate. As the discourse continues, only the revalation of doubt becomes all the more evident.

Derrida calls the first aporia, “the epoche of the rule” (Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, pp. 22-23). Our most common axiom in ethical or political thought is that to be just or unjust and to exercise justice, one must be free and responsible for one's actions and decisions. Here Derrida in effect is asking: what is freedom. On the one hand, freedom consists in following a rule; but in the case of justice, we would say that a judgment that simply followed the law was only right, not just. For a decision to be just, not only must a judge follow a rule but also he or she must “re-institute” it, in a new judgment. Thus a decision aiming at justice (a free decision) is both regulated and unregulated. The law must be conserved and also destroyed or suspended, suspension being the meaning of the word “epoche.” Each case is other, each decision is different and requires an absolutely unique interpretation which no existing coded rule can or ought to guarantee. If a judge programmatically follows a code, he or she is a “calculating machine.” Strict calculation or arbitrariness, one or the other is unjust, but they are both involved; thus, in the present, we cannot say that a judgment, a decision is just, purely just. For Derrida, the “re-institution” of the law in a unique decision is a kind of violence since it does not conform perfectly to the instituted codes; the law is always, according to Derrida, founded in violence. The violent re-institution of the law means that justice is impossible. Derrida calls the second aporia “the ghost of the undecidable (Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, pp. 24-26). A decision begins with the initiative to read, to interpret, and even to calculate. But to make such a decision, one must first of all experience what Derrida calls “undecidability.” One must experience that the case, being unique and singular, does not fit the established codes and therefore a decision about it seems to be impossible. The undecidable, for Derrida, is not mere oscillation between two significations. It is the experience of what, though foreign to the calculable and the rule, is still obligated. We are obligated – this is a kind of duty — to give oneself up to the impossible decision, while taking account of rules and law. As Derrida says, “A decision that did not go through the ordeal of the undecidable would not be a free decision, it would only be the programmable application or unfolding of a calculable process” (Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, p. 24). And once the ordeal is past (“if this ever happens,” as Derrida says), then the decision has again followed or given itself a rule and is no longer presently just. Justice therefore is always to come in the future, it is never present. There is apparently no moment during which a decision could be called presently and fully just. Either it has not a followed a rule, hence it is unjust; or it has followed a rule, which has no foundation, which makes it again unjust; or if it did follow a rule, it was calculated and again unjust since it did not respect the singularity of the case. This relentless injustice is why the ordeal of the undecidable is never past. It keeps coming back like a “phantom,” which “deconstructs from the inside every assurance of presence, and thus every criteriology that would assure us of the justice of the decision” (Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, pp. 24-25). Even though justice is impossible and therefore always to come in or from the future, justice is not, for Derrida, a Kantian ideal, which brings us to the third aporia. The third is called “the urgency that obstructs the horizon of knowledge” (Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, pp. 26-28). Derrida stresses the Greek etymology of the word “horizon”: “As its Greek name suggests, a horizon is both the opening and limit that defines an infinite progress or a period of waiting.” Justice, however, even though it is un-presentable, does not wait. A just decision is always required immediately. It cannot furnish itself with unlimited knowledge. The moment of decision itself remains a finite moment of urgency and precipitation. The instant of decision is then the moment of madness, acting in the night of non-knowledge and non-rule. Once again we have a moment of irruptive violence. This urgency is why justice has no horizon of expectation (either regulative or messianic). Justice remains an event yet to come. Perhaps one must always say “can-be” (the French word for “perhaps” is “peut-être,” which literally means “can be”) for justice. This ability for justice aims however towards what is impossible.
~

Forgive me if this sounds insulting but it appears like you took my suggestion to skim to heart and missed my point almost entirely, and then went on to copy some very loosely related text.

I read through what you have related about Derrida's thoughts, but perhaps you could share some of your own, since his don't really apply.

Once again, this is not supposed to be an attack on you personally.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Forgive me if this sounds insulting but it appears like you took my suggestion to skim to heart and missed my point almost entirely, and then went on to copy some very loosely related text.

I read through what you have related about Derrida's thoughts, but perhaps you could share some of your own, since his don't really apply.

Once again, this is not supposed to be an attack on you personally.

Perhaps then I should give further elaboration:

- The need to be right is really just our desire to confirm our understanding of the world.

Otherwise, we are discussing the nature of debates leading to Aporia. Derrida points out the types of aporia and when they most often manifest.

Does that help...?
~

Help what? I don't have a clear understanding of what you are responding to or what point you are trying to make.

I just read the topic Regarding the need to be right...relieve yourself of it and occasionally let others save face.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Help what? I don't have a clear understanding of what you are responding to or what point you are trying to make.

Here's what your original post relies upon:
- Discussing the transcendental is impossible as it tries to circumscribe transcendental topics into propositions.
- Considering that propositions are all equal and that language cannot properly represent the transcendental, we can never represent or proposition transcendental topics (such as ethics, aesthetics, etc.) into propositional language.
- Thus, aporia perpetuates as a consequence.

What do you think...?
~

No, thats not really what I was getting at.

Discussion is not really the issue. Any idea of the transcendental is flawed in itself because it is based on the inaccuracies of language and subjective thought from the beginning. When you and I talk about an apple we both base our ideas off of physical evidence that we have received, having both seen apples. After having seen enough apples to know what similar qualities they all share, we can both form an archetypal image of an apple in our minds and these archetypes most likely will agree with each other.

In the case of non-physical subjects like religion, our knowledge and belief about them is based purely on other's knowledge and beliefs. Its not a matter of being able to accurately communicate the the non-physical, but the impossibility for anyone to grasp the exact nature of the non-physical in the first place because of our inability to experience it from everyone's definitively unique perspective.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No, thats not really what I was getting at.

I hope this post helps to show how I was trying to delve a bit more into what you are talking about.

Discussion is not really the issue. Any idea of the transcendental is flawed in itself because it is based on the inaccuracies of language and subjective thought from the beginning. When you and I talk about an apple we both base our ideas off of physical evidence that we have received, having both seen apples. After having seen enough apples to know what similar qualities they all share, we can both form an archetypal image of an apple in our minds and these archetypes most likely will agree with each other.

As you said in the original post, we instinctively require the experience ourselves in order to believe certain things. Hence why empicism is religiously followed by atheists - it is a means of experiencing hypothesis purported by others in order to clarify its nature of truth. (ie. your strawberry example originally). However, if we do not experience it (have no strawberries to test your theory that they make you sick) then we are left to discussion and debate which inevitably leads to aporia.

In the case of non-physical subjects like religion, our knowledge and belief about them is based purely on other's knowledge and beliefs. Its not a matter of being able to accurately communicate the the non-physical, but the impossibility for anyone to grasp the exact nature of the non-physical in the first place because of our inability to experience it from everyone's definitively unique perspective.

I am saying that no one can grasp the exact nature of the non-physical (synonymous with transcendental) because of our reliance on language and forms of communication in order to convey these transcendental experiences.

For example, let's say you truthfully and actually experience God incarnate. You tell me, "God is real, I experienced God" I would say "Prove it" and, well, you cannot (because your experience of God has passed). You also cannot express it, show it, or anything because of how much you rely on language (communication) in order to represent the transcendental (experience of the non-physical/transcendental, ie. God).

What do you think...?
~

I think the reason why we are not understanding each other is because I used certain ideas to show why my conclusion made sense, and it seemse like you are ignoring the conclusion and simply discussing/reiterating my evidence.

The point was tolerance of others points of view as valid. I should have made it clear not to skim that part. If it can be shown that transcendental topics are shrouded in doubt by their very nature, then it should be easy for us all to understand that someone else, anyone else may be right about some things, and at the very least that they are not maliciously opposing you. Instead of focusing on the fact that what someone says they believe doesn't make sense, everyone should instead examine the circumstances that would have to exist for you to believe as they do, and then form a consensus in your own mind of anothers sense and your own.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think the reason why we are not understanding each other is because I used certain ideas to show why my conclusion made sense, and it seemse like you are ignoring the conclusion and simply discussing/reiterating my evidence.

Pardon me - I believed you would give leeway for discussion about your topic and its derivatives.

The point was tolerance of others points of view as valid. I should have made it clear not to skim that part.

Agreed.

If it can be shown that transcendental topics are shrouded in doubt by their very nature, then it should be easy for us all to understand that someone else, anyone else may be right about some things, and at the very least that they are not maliciously opposing you. Instead of focusing on the fact that what someone says they believe doesn't make sense, everyone should instead examine the circumstances that would have to exist for you to believe as they do, and then form a consensus in your own mind of anothers sense and your own.

Agreed. Are you implying the use of psychology as a means for understanding here...? Or simply relating and sympathising..? Or something else, likely eclectic..?
~

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I just read the topic Regarding the need to be right...relieve yourself of it and occasionally let others save face.

I rarely feel as though I need to be right, or even attempt to be for that matter. Usually my goal is to offer evidence that shows where others are most likely wrong, and to allow others to do the same for me. In this way I can revise my world view in the most efficient way. Even though we can never be sure when we are right, we can be sure in many cases when we are wrong.

I'd just like to know, are you using "saving face" to suggest that you would rather appear correct than actually be so?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Pardon me - I believed you would give leeway for discussion about your topic and its derivatives.

By all means, discuss whatever part interests you. All I was saying is that my mind was focusing on different parts than you keyed in to so I was having trouble understanding what it was you were trying to discuss.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Agreed. Are you implying the use of psychology as a means for understanding here...? Or simply relating and sympathising..? Or something else, likely eclectic..?
~

psychology in a way, closer to simple empathy. The scope of human emotions is based almost entirely on our ability to identify with others. We hate and fear what we don't identify with, and love and cherish those things that we identify with the most. Broadening the scope of our ability to identify with others leads to understanding and acceptance. Even if I don't hold the same beliefs as you do; just being capable to understand how I could hold those beliefs is enough to bridge many gaps.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

By all means, discuss whatever part interests you. All I was saying is that my mind was focusing on different parts than you keyed in to so I was having trouble understanding what it was you were trying to discuss.

Pardon me for presenting it arbitrarily - I realize that I really did not show the cohesion at first.

psychology in a way, closer to simple empathy. The scope of human emotions is based almost entirely on our ability to identify with others. We hate and fear what we don't identify with, and love and cherish those things that we identify with the most. Broadening the scope of our ability to identify with others leads to understanding and acceptance. Even if I don't hold the same beliefs as you do; just being capable to understand how I could hold those beliefs is enough to bridge many gaps.

Nice. You remind me of a humanist - are you..? (If you are worried of a backlash, I also favour forms of humanism) I am curious now as to what it is that you believe as you implied, in the other thread, that you consider yourself religious.

To keep on topic; it is interesting of you to note this because the series of events in relating a belief can sometimes be the entire reason for a belief. I think this fringes on aporetic discussion, but I like that you have noted this and hope others see its practical use to keep in mind during debates.

I do my best to keep in mind in order to respect and keep discussions civil. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult; especially through crude text that eliminates prosody.
~

Humans are such a small part of all that exists that I could never call myself a humanist. We should attempt to understand all things and act in the best interest of whatever we encounter, and not simply our own species.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Humans are such a small part of all that exists that I could never call myself a humanist. We should attempt to understand all things and act in the best interest of whatever we encounter, and not simply our own species.

Oh, no, I meant humanist in the sense of applied psychiatry. Humanism in the sense of social communication, etc. What you are describing is pretty much the crux of humanism. ie. try and understand what can best benefit humans, based on human reasoning (this is merely because we have no other species to communicate with, really..)
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh, no, I meant humanist in the sense of applied psychiatry. Humanism in the sense of social communication, etc. What you are describing is pretty much the crux of humanism. ie. try and understand what can best benefit humans, based on human reasoning (this is merely because we have no other species to communicate with, really..)
~

every action is a form of communication. I can't discuss philosophy with a maple tree using the english language, but I can try to understand it and act in our combined best interest.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

every action is a form of communication. I can't discuss philosophy with a maple tree using the english language, but I can try to understand it and act in our combined best interest.

Yes, humanism does not need to ignore other beings in existance; it simply focuses on humanisitic ways of communication. However, I see what you mean. What is it you want to do then? As a career? By this I also mean; what can you do? There are specific fields of study to learn how to "communicate" with all certain animals, sciences, etc. The problem is that there is a limitation to our forms of communication and we ought to focus on what we can communicate with in order to communicate with the diversity.
~

Pardon my intrusion, but shouldn't this be in PhilosophY?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Pardon my intrusion, but shouldn't this be in PhilosophY?

It could, but I think it was his intention to show how experiencing a God or transcendental things is necessary in order to believe in them. We then continued to show the problems with proving transcendental things without empirical means and how they inevitably lead to aporia.

In other words, I do not really think there is a debate going on here.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

It could, but I think it was his intention to show how experiencing a God or transcendental things is necessary in order to believe in them. We then continued to show the problems with proving transcendental things without empirical means and how they inevitably lead to aporia.

In other words, I do not really think there is a debate going on here.
~

On a second reading I see that now. Thankyou.