Ever feel like people need to question basic assumptions more?

[skykiii]

A lot of times on the web (including here on Deep Thoughts) I find my problem with a question is that it relies on a basic premise that we don't know to be true. And I seem to be the only one to catch it (not to blow my own horn).

Like the "why doesn't God just make the world perfect?" topic. I didn't see anyone else point out that one man's "perfect world" is someone else's dystopic hellscape.

Someone else once posited that if the afterlife is eternal, you'd get bored of it.

Basic assumptions inherent in that question:
ONE - That the afterlife is eternal.
TWO - That you will think as a spirit the same way you did as an organic being
THREE - That the variety of experiences will be that limited.

None of which we have reason to believe are true.

Off-Kiwi, I got into an argument with someone about whether media influences you. This person tried to say "of course it does, that's why advertising works."

But... does advertising work? Because last I checked, literally everything gets advertised but not everything goes on to become a hit. The idea that advertising is effective for anything more than just letting people know something exists, seems like... I forget what the name of this logical fallacy is, the one where you only remember the times something has worked but forget all the times it didn't. Which the times advertising didn't work vastly outnumber the times it did.

Anyway, yeah.

Just in general, when asking a question your first thought should be "is my premise even true?"

Especially spiritual questions. Nine times out of ten people having some sort of faith issue or are majorly blackpilled, are only so because they're operating from a line of thought founded on bullshit.

 

[break these cuffs]

The one assumption I never question is that OP is a faggot.

 

[Gog & Magog]

Maybe, but then you might turn into a post-modernist.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

No, in fact on a more general level we live in a postmodernist landscape where lots of people's brains are totally cooked by constantly questioning basic assumptions, lest they be "unreasonable" or "unscientific". It's even a great tool for people looking to push other, less assured people around; "Yeah I cheated on you, but why is cheating bad really? Have you considered that you having a problem with it is actually a sign that you're insecure?".

It can be damaging to someone if they aren't able to draw the line, and it can be paralyzing to people who overanalyze. So no in some cases it might even be better if people questioned basic assumptions a little less, especially on a practical level. Traditionally cultural assumptions often exist for a good reason.

Off-Kiwi, I got into an argument with someone about whether media influences you. This person tried to say "of course it does, that's why advertising works."

But... does advertising work? Because last I checked, literally everything gets advertised but not everything goes on to become a hit. The idea that advertising is effective for anything more than just letting people know something exists, seems like... I forget what the name of this logical fallacy is, the one where you only remember the times something has worked but forget all the times it didn't. Which the times advertising didn't work vastly outnumber the times it did.

Yeah but that means it does sometimes work, there's historical evidence of times that it was a home run (like when advertisers magicked into existence the idea that bacon is a breakfast food, in order to sell more pork).

Also, have you questioned your own premise? How effective does advertising need to be to be considered to have "worked"? And why does letting you know something exists and what it does not count as influencing you?
So do you have to go out to buy a product personally? How about "impressions", where the idea isn't to directly sell you a product, but simply to increase ambient name recognition?

I believe the opposite, I believe that if there is an advertisement, and you are in any way mentally present for that advertisement, the ad worked to some extent. They want their product to be in front of you, and it was. It may have not worked to an extent where it's profitable to them vs. the cost of the ad, but it still worked.

Someone else once posited that if the afterlife is eternal, you'd get bored of it.

Basic assumptions inherent in that question:
ONE - That the afterlife is eternal.
TWO - That you will think as a spirit the same way you did as an organic being
THREE - That the variety of experiences will be that limited.

Yes because that's a predominant traditional depiction of the afterlife, that you will essentially walk through some pearly gates and hang out with angels for the rest of eternity. And if that isn't in any way how it works, it calls into question what the actual value of an afterlife is.

That's a much bigger question for a different thread though.

 

[Grub]

Basic assumptions are why modern society exists and we're not still a bunch of animals. The fact that humans can use basic assumptions to abstract away details and then build more knowledge on top of those assumptions is pretty much how the entire body of human knowledge and skills exist.

Basic assumptions inherent in that question:
ONE - That the afterlife is eternal.

Also, the primary basic assumption here is the existence of an afterlife period.

 

[Althalus]

Going to tag @Fek into this thread, as he can probably make a better contribution than I.

But my take is 100% yes. Society is fake and gay, the education system is a lie, and we basically are zoo animals/livestock. Most people don't really question it though, and that is deliberate.

Like the "why doesn't God just make the world perfect?"

Implying God wanted a "perfect" world, or that the "god" who created this world was even perfect, or even the "real God".

Agreed that the common discussions regarding the afterlife make a lot of assumptions that take certain things for granted, that might not be true.

Gnosticism might be something you would be interested in researching.

But... does advertising work? Because last I checked, literally everything gets advertised but not everything goes on to become a hit. The idea that advertising is effective for anything more than just letting people know something exists, seems like... I forget what the name of this logical fallacy is, the one where you only remember the times something has worked but forget all the times it didn't. Which the times advertising didn't work vastly outnumber the times it did.

Advertising is just mass conditioning to make the population at-large think of a certain brand when they are looking for something. It "working" isn't about getting you specifically to buy the thing, its about shaping large-scale societal perceptions. You are more likely to buy something if lots of people you know IRL already bought it, and most of those people probably were influenced by marketing.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I got into an argument with someone about whether media influences you. This person tried to say "of course it does, that's why advertising works."

But... does advertising work? Because last I checked, literally everything gets advertised but not everything goes on to become a hit.

If you don't think advertising works then you should tell the advertisers spending literally billions per year on it, or try releasing your own product without marketing it. It isn't magic and won't make everyone who sees it buy it, but it doesn't need to for the general statement to be true.

As for media influencing people, absolutely. That's why liberals put their propaganda into everything. Again, no, not everyone who sees gay propaganda will become a fag, most probably won't, but it is effective enough and will at least have a desensitizing effect.

No, in fact on a more general level we live in a postmodernist landscape where lots of people's brains are totally cooked by constantly questioning basic assumptions, lest they be "unreasonable" or "unscientific".

This is why liberals can't accept niggers are criminals and get killed by them when they treat them like White people.

 

[urr13 account]

God is using this simulation to observe and evaluate human behavior, distinguishing between those who are virtuous and those who are not

When God sees someone like myself, an incredibly breathtakingly virtuous person, do you think God himself is ever in awe of my virtue?

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Often times, the only assumption being made on other people's part is that you've taken the time to think about certain things and have come to a similar conclusion as them.
I'll go through some of your given examples:

Like the "why doesn't God just make the world perfect?" topic. I didn't see anyone else point out that one man's "perfect world" is someone else's dystopic hellscape.

Core to the quandary is God's omnipotence. So the question that immediately follows from your reply is "why couldn't an omnipotent God make a world that's perfect for everyone?"

Someone else once posited that if the afterlife is eternal, you'd get bored of it.

Basic assumptions inherent in that question:
ONE - That the afterlife is eternal.
TWO - That you will think as a spirit the same way you did as an organic being
THREE - That the variety of experiences will be that lilimited.

Assumption 1 is a given in the argument. Taking it as true is sort of the toll for participating in the conversation, much like the existence of any afterlife at all.
2 is addressed multiple times in the thread you're talking about. Iirc it was the most common response.
3 has baked into it the hidden assumption that novel experiences can even possibly be unlimited.

Off-Kiwi, I got into an argument with someone about whether media influences you. This person tried to say "of course it does, that's why advertising works."

But... does advertising work?

Part of your problem here is you're acting as though the person you're talking to has never thought about that before. He probably has. He probably came to the conclusion that it does work. And he probably came to the conclusion that it's sufficiently well accepted that it does work that you probably came to that conclusion as well.

 

[Saint Agustin]

I rather like binary choices and flux diagrams

Example: Is OP a faggots?

If yes call him a faggots. If no call him a faggot.

Either way OP: You are a faggot.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Just in general, when asking a question your first thought should be "is my premise even true?"

Especially spiritual questions. Nine times out of ten people having some sort of faith issue or are majorly blackpilled, are only so because they're operating from a line of thought founded on bullshit.

The problem is that very few people genuinely philosophize. Accordingly, the premises they operate on were never seriously questioned or argued for, they are a hodgepodge of pseudo-ideas absorbed from parents, upbringing, and social groups.
I am even having this issue with people who ostensibly did philosophize. Getting into arguments with people who ostensibly should be knowing what they're talking about, but making the wildest claims, not clearly differentiating between disciplines, and being so cocksure about themselves that they make a complete joke of themselves.
Like, recently I was arguing with an objectivist who was so completely retarded that, instead of admitting he made a category error in an earlier point, he would proceed to say things contradicting literally the first page of the first chapter of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and when I pointed this out, he would assert that Rand was wrong about objectivism.
My conclusion is that most people are fucking retarded.

 

[Fek]

Going to tag @Fek into this thread, as he can probably make a better contribution than I.

Oh, hello.

Sure, I'll offer a quick (lol) hot take right off-the-cuff:

Let's start with some background and defining of ideas. This will be important for the later points on basic assumptions, I promise.

Humanity is by its very nature extremely suggestible. This is used as a tool by those in the know to displace personal experience with presupposition for the purposes of limiting personal growth. One of the most common forms of this involves presenting any given group of humanity with option A or option B, however both rely on the premise that the underlying context is a given. That it must be true. The option chosen does not matter in any of these scenarios, as it only exists to create (seemingly) unconscious consent within the minds of all participants that they agree with the context. People then, without fully realizing what they are doing, parrot this context and make it into a potentially macabre reality.

Now, many people out there understand this when it comes to, say, the media. News, etc. However, there are even more basic assumptions which require an even bigger suggestion with which to obfuscate Truth. This group of semi-conscious individuals will, on the one hand, berate others or bolster themselves as being "awake". On the other hand, they will also not realize that they've allowed themselves to once again enter complacency over a seeming elevated position.

People, whether they like to admit it or not, have blind-spots. Have presumptions lingering in their minds which weren't originally placed there personally, but willfully agreed to through participation. So! How about we get to a fine example of basic assumptions in dire need of questioning, shall we?

A super fun recent example which will make many squirm in discomfort is the simple fact that not one of the restrictions put in place during the farce known as COVID could have happened without their collective consent. Basic assumptions were not questioned at all, and it led to a lot of undue suffering which all involved had the power to avoid participating in. Performing feats of complaining and flailing about may have been seen by some of these people as non-compliance, but that could not be further from the truth. Complaining while complying does nothing but reinforce the suggestion. "I am powerless to stop these acts of which I agree to participate" is all that is ultimately said. This span of a couple years was a lesson in real-time on the dangers of basic assumptions remaining unchallenged.

To conclude on a more positive note: no matter how ridiculous the setting or big the lie? Learning how to challenge basic assumptions makes them all crumble away. There is no narrative or lie or "fact" or "information" in this life that will not yield to one capable of doing so. If you are able to do this? I'd suggest you seek to help others do the same.

Help empower others. Love thy neighbor, friends.

 

[Dawdler]

Whole society is constructed around controlling people (you) and exploiting them for production.
Even if you ask yourself questions and question everything you will live and die in it.
Morpheus: "Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"

If you went to public school you were being molded into a public person. Machine can't work without cogs and you have to be shaped like one.
It is inescapable as any religion. You are in it, your parents are in it, your sisters and brothers are in it, your grandparents, teachers .. everyone.

 

[skykiii]

Core to the quandary is God's omnipotence. So the question that immediately follows from your reply is "why couldn't an omnipotent God make a world that's perfect for everyone?"

I still think that runs up against the "define what 'perfect' means" issue. In this case I would assume each individuals idea of perfection, but I can't think of a way to do that which wouldn't be essentially shuttering people off into their own solipsist realities, which they may not like. People are known for not knowing what they really want anyway--so many times the things we think would make us happy actually make us miserable.

........................

Anyway, I always love asking questions like this, and seeing the mix of thoughts it inspires (though admittedly the "stop thinking! Intelligent thought will make you a tranny!" knee-jerkisms from certain people--they know who they are--are kinda irksome).

 

[umseriously]

What you're saying is indeed true OP. But regardless, there should be some basic foundations we are able to share to facilitate discussion. So, the most important thing here is ensuring we have common ground before we start any type of debate or discussion. Or else, our differing ideas of "common sense" will ruin it.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I can think up arguments for this, but a big assumption I see (because it comes out of Abrahamic religion) is the notion that a classical big-g God has to be omniscient about future events/the consequences of it and other's actions.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Just in general, when asking a question your first thought should be "is my premise even true?"

Especially spiritual questions. Nine times out of ten people having some sort of faith issue or are majorly blackpilled, are only so because they're operating from a line of thought founded on bullshit.

That's kind of dumb because when it comes to more abstract topics like philosophy or religion, there's a difference between what is "true" and what isn't.

Getting hung up on what someone believes to be true (and we're talking commonly held beliefs, not schizophrenic nonsense) is not very useful when debating, sometimes you have to accept that to actually make a point.

 

[skykiii]

Just now, I remembered a quote from a Michael Crichton novel:

"We don't even have proof humans are sentient. After all, our first instinct is not to think, but to conform." [Just to be clear I think this was meant to be a certain character's belief... but with how Crichton wrote, it was hard to tell where the line between "in-character belief" ended and "Crichton using character as mouthpiece" began]

Sometimes when I'm reading the internet I can't help but think this. I notice any time you ask an actually insightful question, it tends to make people feel almost threatened. Some of the responses in this very thread are almost an example.

And in greater scope I have noticed people tend to just parrot things other people told them rather than give their own answer. Being a cartoon nut, for example, I often see people parrot the age old "eighties cartoons are bad because they're based on toys," but then when I ask "why is that a bad thing, exactly?" they suddenly clam up.

Another one that came up recently was I was telling a person that I feel like its healthier to watch anime than to binge tiktok. Said person immediately went off about "consoomers" and such and acting like I was advocating being a shut-in neet. Which had nothing to do with what I was talking about (the context was spending time during a storm that prevented us from going outside, FWIW). I was only arguing that if our choices were between binging anime or watching tons of meme videos, anime is probably healthier for our brains--if for no other reason than because a story (even a bad or simplistic one) demands some sort of mental engagement, whereas funny tiktoks do not.

And I'm sure the above paragraph is gonna result in sperging from the kind of Kiwi who irrationally hates anything to do with Japan regardless of the actual context or point being made. In other places its already gotten backlash from people my own age who remember the time when sitting on your ass watching TV was considered that generation's version of binging TikToks.

(I never understood that, even at the time. Cuz the thing is... back in the day, eventually you would run into a point where no channel is playing anything you want to watch. For me this was usually the "go outside and play" time, or the "turn on the Nintendo" time. You don't get this anymore with on-demand streaming or web media where, of course, you can put on anything, at any time).

I thought about posting this sperg as a new topic but felt like it fit in more with the current one.

 

[Wild at Heart]

people need to be more confrontational in general. like, in public. fuck your pitbull, fuck your platitudes, back up your soft serve worldview with something of substance. take a stance, pussy!

So yeah, I agree. A lot of people are in bubbles and never get checked.

 

[Otterly]

You have to be selective with this stuff. Yes you can question absolutely everything, it you’ll get to the ‘anyone who thinks they don’t exist is buying his own beers’ stage very quick.
As @Grub says, we as humans use a base set of assumptions all the time. When you walk you’re assuming gravity and your body works like it did last time. Social interactions require assumptions that people will react certain ways.
The skill is knowing when and where to apply the skepticism.

does advertising work? Because last I checked, literally everything gets advertised but not everything goes on to become a hit. The idea that advertising is effective for anything more than just letting people know something exists, seems like... I forget what the name of this logical fallacy is, the one where you only remember the times something has worked but forget all the times it didn't. Which the times advertising didn't work vastly outnumber the times it did.

Yeah it works - not all will work on everyone. Adverts for golfing equipment aren’t going to pique my interest because i don’t golf. Sell me a really garden spade, or give me this years seed catalogue and I’m interested.
But social advertising? Yes that works on the majority. Safe and effective! Two weeks to flatten that fucking curve, hm guys!
I don’t think anyone’s immune to propaganda. What propaganda they are susceptible to will be individual a bit more. Remember during Covid there was a position. Document who ch looked at did free rent messages for different people. So for example some would be swayed by authority, others by an appeal to not hurt the vulnerable, etc