A
Adios_Adieu
Guest
Do intellectual arguments change minds which wouldn’t have done so anyway?
Intellectual arguments drive people more deeply into their “emotional convictions”, in ALL cases.
The hope of the “intellectual” is that by driving those people who have “incorrect” emotional convictions to more fully get into the DEPTHS of their held convictions, the inherent “wrongness” of those convictions will be more keenly felt, and “prod” them **from THE INSIDE **into the realization that they hold incorrect convictions. At least, this SHOULD be the hope of the “intellectual”, as to actually believe that intellectual argument itself (“proof showing”) will change anyone’s mind is folly.
Arguing can only plant seeds of internal realization of truth. It can never “convince”, because emotional convictions are never changable in the time frame of argument.
The great “razor” by which people actually decide on matters like “religious things” is a felt need, an emotion, which is more unpleasant than the pleasant emotion of being “right”.
I would suggest that to do that which would DRIVE people to be MORE HARDHEARTED in what they believe is more valuable than finding “common ground” which appeases differences, because it gets more results (TRUE conversion) in less time (though still only over a LONG time) than it’s alternative.
There is still room, of course, for more “mild” forms of enticement to offer to those you would change, but they are ONLY useful with people who would change soon anyway. The “hardcases” are amenable only to the unpleasantness from within which only THEY can produce.
Intellectual arguments drive people more deeply into their “emotional convictions”, in ALL cases.
The hope of the “intellectual” is that by driving those people who have “incorrect” emotional convictions to more fully get into the DEPTHS of their held convictions, the inherent “wrongness” of those convictions will be more keenly felt, and “prod” them **from THE INSIDE **into the realization that they hold incorrect convictions. At least, this SHOULD be the hope of the “intellectual”, as to actually believe that intellectual argument itself (“proof showing”) will change anyone’s mind is folly.
Arguing can only plant seeds of internal realization of truth. It can never “convince”, because emotional convictions are never changable in the time frame of argument.
The great “razor” by which people actually decide on matters like “religious things” is a felt need, an emotion, which is more unpleasant than the pleasant emotion of being “right”.
I would suggest that to do that which would DRIVE people to be MORE HARDHEARTED in what they believe is more valuable than finding “common ground” which appeases differences, because it gets more results (TRUE conversion) in less time (though still only over a LONG time) than it’s alternative.
There is still room, of course, for more “mild” forms of enticement to offer to those you would change, but they are ONLY useful with people who would change soon anyway. The “hardcases” are amenable only to the unpleasantness from within which only THEY can produce.