Post by Radrook Admin on Jul 23, 2022 9:52:55 GMT -5
Example of flawed thinking.
The following is an example of flawed reasoning caused by deontological or rule-thinking. The person is criticizing previous quotation of scriptures, by comparing such quotations as parroting and unoriginal thinking. Unfortunately for him, the arguments he presents are seriously flawed. Below are posted his arguments with my response.
The choice is simple :
To be the parrot of someone else knowledge : your God, prophets, or scribes (in fact, always scribes, that means novelists).
Or to think by yourself.
The one is accessible to all and easy.
The second possibility requires thinking and work.
Macdonald Bible.
Versus Michelin free thinking restaurants.
Be careful with the digestion.
McDonald causes morbidity.
The heaven taste.
When a Michelin 3 stellars restaurant may lead to Atemporality, means immortality.
Beyond heavens and hells.
You choose.
To be the parrot of someone else knowledge : your God, prophets, or scribes (in fact, always scribes, that means novelists).
Or to think by yourself.
The one is accessible to all and easy.
The second possibility requires thinking and work.
Macdonald Bible.
Versus Michelin free thinking restaurants.
Be careful with the digestion.
McDonald causes morbidity.
The heaven taste.
When a Michelin 3 stellars restaurant may lead to Atemporality, means immortality.
Beyond heavens and hells.
You choose.
My Response
Not a very hard choice to make for the following reasons.
Your premises are flawed due to your using deontological reasoning . Deontological thinking is thinking based on platitudes or inflexible rules.
Below are the three inflexible rules that you are proposing.
1. Quoting sources is equal to being a parrot.
2. Someone else's knowledge should always be rejected.
3. Thinking for onself is always wise.
Now, let's examine them one by one and see if they hold up under close scrutiny.
1. Quoting sources is equal to being a parrot.
Wrong! If it were indeed true, as you claim. then it would make a host of public speakers parrots simply because they quote reliable sources to support their arguments. In short , the quotation of sources is an academically accepted practice. It is used in essays, and debates, for the purpose of persuasion. In fact, the omission of quoting sources will get you an F in certain college essay assignments. Not using them is considered a sign of mental laziness.
2. Really? If someone warns me about a certain danger I should immediately reject it beccauise it is not my knowledge. If someone warns me about a shark in the water I should ignore it and jump in anyway because it was his knowledge passed on to me? Are you serious?
3. So thinking for oneself is always wise. Do you know that there are horrendous examples of people rejecting advice and thinking for themselves and winding up dead Crassus the Roman general reject advice and wound up with his head being put on prominent display in Parthia. Another Roman general rejected warnings of an imminent Germanic trap and wound up having to commit suicide to prevent falling into Germanic hands after his legions were ambushed.
Sorry, but the wise course of action is to evaluate suggestions and knowledge and to be open to advice.
My suggestion is that you reject rule thinking or deontological thinking, It can lead to disasters because it makes the person a robot and robotic thinking will only serve to deprive you of freedom of choice. In fact, it will be tantamount to wandering around blind.
Matthew 15:14 ►NIV
Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
Your premises are flawed due to your using deontological reasoning . Deontological thinking is thinking based on platitudes or inflexible rules.
Below are the three inflexible rules that you are proposing.
1. Quoting sources is equal to being a parrot.
2. Someone else's knowledge should always be rejected.
3. Thinking for onself is always wise.
Now, let's examine them one by one and see if they hold up under close scrutiny.
1. Quoting sources is equal to being a parrot.
Wrong! If it were indeed true, as you claim. then it would make a host of public speakers parrots simply because they quote reliable sources to support their arguments. In short , the quotation of sources is an academically accepted practice. It is used in essays, and debates, for the purpose of persuasion. In fact, the omission of quoting sources will get you an F in certain college essay assignments. Not using them is considered a sign of mental laziness.
The Value of Citing Reliable Sources in Academic Work
2. Really? If someone warns me about a certain danger I should immediately reject it beccauise it is not my knowledge. If someone warns me about a shark in the water I should ignore it and jump in anyway because it was his knowledge passed on to me? Are you serious?
3. So thinking for oneself is always wise. Do you know that there are horrendous examples of people rejecting advice and thinking for themselves and winding up dead Crassus the Roman general reject advice and wound up with his head being put on prominent display in Parthia. Another Roman general rejected warnings of an imminent Germanic trap and wound up having to commit suicide to prevent falling into Germanic hands after his legions were ambushed.
Sorry, but the wise course of action is to evaluate suggestions and knowledge and to be open to advice.
My suggestion is that you reject rule thinking or deontological thinking, It can lead to disasters because it makes the person a robot and robotic thinking will only serve to deprive you of freedom of choice. In fact, it will be tantamount to wandering around blind.
Matthew 15:14 ►NIV
Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”