Tyler's Run

Tyler · Number of posts: 23 Registration date: 2008-04-08

QuestEon wrote:

That's the biggest thing Tyler exposes. The conclusions Stef draws are preposterous and therefore his follow-up questions are nonsensical. How come no one has ever pointed out that however brilliant he may be, Stef just isn't very good at the Socratic method?

My impression is that his problem, and maybe the biggest problem with the Socratic method in general, is that it's vulnerable to immodesty. When Stef goes through his "curious" routine, he's pretty obviously not honest about it. Nowhere do I get the impression that Stef actually wants to know the answer to the questions that he's asking. It's clear that he's asking them in order to expose some vulnerability in someone else's thinking. And the method is so well-understood that it amounts to little more than argumentative paternalism. Since it's not genuine curiosity, it's plainly dishonest.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Welcome Tyler!!! You did an excellent job of your argument. IMO you were right on and I felt Stef did not answer your question. I agree with many (if not all) of your statements on first read. That was a great read. I have to give your parents kudos for great home schooling!

QuestEon wrote:

How come #2:

By the way, while Stef was knocking Christians who blindly believe in a flawed bible, how come no one is asking him why his followers blindly believe in a book (UPB) that's just been knocked in the dumpster by a third-year philosophy major?

I love this!

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Tyler wrote:

When Stef goes through his "curious" routine, he's pretty obviously not honest about it. Nowhere do I get the impression that Stef actually wants to know the answer to the questions that he's asking. It's clear that he's asking them in order to expose some vulnerability in someone else's thinking. And the method is so well-understood that it amounts to little more than argumentative paternalism. Since it's not genuine curiosity, it's plainly dishonest.

Right - For Stef it is about power!

sutible4livestok · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:34 pm

So I finally read the posts on FDR. I cannot believe how misleading stef was. Tyler specifically asked how to test his feelings about his family. He was then bombarded with irrelevant questioning about their religion. Ugh, it just pisses me off the way he acts.

sutible4livestok · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:38 pm

ExyPhylo wrote:

Welcome Tyler!!! You did an excellent job of your argument. IMO you were right on and I felt Stef did not answer your question. I agree with many (if not all) of your statements on first read. That was a great read. I have to give your parents kudos for great home schooling!

QuestEon wrote:

How come #2:

By the way, while Stef was knocking Christians who blindly believe in a flawed bible, how come no one is asking him why his followers blindly believe in a book (UPB) that's just been knocked in the dumpster by a third-year philosophy major?

I love this!

Could i please get a link to where it was knocked in the dumpster and perhaps a free copy of the book?

if anyone is willing?

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

The Holy Moly Project

sutible4livestok · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:43 pm

it was deleted

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

its there, you have to read back to the first post.
It is also discussed here http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/the-molyneux-project-t456-0.htm

sutible4livestok · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:51 pm

ook
i did that now
its neat to see him dispatched so nicely

mike barskey · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:57 am

QuestEon wrote:

mike barskey wrote:

Anyway, now that I've contributed nothing to the original subject of this thread, I'll vanish.

eddie2

Don't ever do that! I read that the re-make is in pre-production and due to be released in 2010. Prolly have better fx, at least. Thanks for the corrections, I didn't remember it very well, just thought the comparison with Tyler was funny.

hehe. Thanks. I'll stick around. Smile

I'll see the remake on DVD. It should be interesting.

mike barskey · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:59 am

ExyPhylo wrote:

Tyler wrote:

When Stef goes through his "curious" routine, he's pretty obviously not honest about it. Nowhere do I get the impression that Stef actually wants to know the answer to the questions that he's asking. It's clear that he's asking them in order to expose some vulnerability in someone else's thinking. And the method is so well-understood that it amounts to little more than argumentative paternalism. Since it's not genuine curiosity, it's plainly dishonest.

Right - For Stef it is about power!

Last edited by ExyPhylo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:42 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : stef is a pompous ass)

(my emphasis)

hehe. that is funny! "Reason for editing: stef is a pompous ass"

eddie2

Conrad · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:40 am

Tyler wrote:

QuestEon wrote:

That's the biggest thing Tyler exposes. The conclusions Stef draws are preposterous and therefore his follow-up questions are nonsensical. How come no one has ever pointed out that however brilliant he may be, Stef just isn't very good at the Socratic method?

My impression is that his problem, and maybe the biggest problem with the Socratic method in general, is that it's vulnerable to immodesty. When Stef goes through his "curious" routine, he's pretty obviously not honest about it. Nowhere do I get the impression that Stef actually wants to know the answer to the questions that he's asking. It's clear that he's asking them in order to expose some vulnerability in someone else's thinking. And the method is so well-understood that it amounts to little more than argumentative paternalism. Since it's not genuine curiosity, it's plainly dishonest.

it is very rare indeed that Stef is satisfied with an answer that he didnt already expect. truth be told, often this is also the case because he really does have great insight into the other's psyche, but on a significant number of occasions it is also because he has a preconceived idea that is not open to question. so if the other does not 'comply' Stef uses psychological tricks, rethorical tricks to 'win over' the other or the audience.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Tyler's Run Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:53 am

Tyler wrote:

Conrad wrote:

so how did you get to know FDR and what value did you get from it despite the bad stuff about it?

I found it on iTunes, searching for philosophy or ethics or something. One thing that I definitely appreciated there was (maybe ironically) the acceptance that family relationships aren't fundamentally different from any other relationship. I think that's something that most of us just don't think about, and so I'm grateful for what Stef has done to point it out.

yeah, me too

Quote:

I wonder, though, if most people just end up out-growing him? Has that been you observation, or do those people who get onboard (and who aren't banned) tend to take up permanent residence?

well, if you look at the people who now pretty much form the core of FDR'ers then it seems that it takes a certain type of personality to stay involved in FDR. Also, it is not a very big group.

I think the great majority of people were quite interested in FDR at some point, for some period of time, learned a lot and then went on. Most of which did so relatiely quietly, and some such as many here on LM not so quietly. I can't really say for myself that I've grown over FDR yet, otherwise I wouldnt still be posting and thinking about it.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Conrad wrote:

I can't really say for myself that I've grown over FDR yet, otherwise I wouldnt still be posting and thinking about it.

All things in their proper time.

- NonE

Anne la Jordanie · Number of posts: 90 Age: 20 Registration date: 2008-02-26

I know just how Tyler feels... it can be pretty weird to read about yourself here before joining. It's such a different feeling compared to reading what FDR has to say about when you aren't there.

There was some thing interesting I noticed Stef say in that thread, though: "Of course, if your parents do not subscribe to any of the violence and evil in the Bible, then they are not Christians of course -- if they do, then they are not moral, as I'm sure you would agree." Tyler repeatedly said that they didn't subscribe to such things, so by Stef's own logic, they are not true Christians, regardless of their statements that they are.

Also, how do you think Stef would debate with a Christian sect or individual that DOESN'T consider the Bible the absolute word of God, since some do not?

_________________
My cake of justice gives me +5 to Dispute Resolution.