this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
45 points (97.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44529 readers
783 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, you answered your own question 3 times. Consider the nature of that kind of conversation.
In a nutshell, thinking coarsens as it passes hand to hand. First-hand is finest. Fourth-hand is a crude and nigh-solipsistic.
So that's one argument for independent thought.
I disagree. I believe that in the right hands it sharpens as it passes. If it does not, then you might need to change the way you talk to others in order to get there.
There are many times I have had thoughts that are principally correct or ideologically true to my beliefs, but that has been more moderated as I have heard the opinions and thoughts of others.
In a perfect world my values would be shared by everyone and the principles I hold would be shared amongst everyone. But we live in a world of compromise, and we can not fight every fight. And also, I am not infallible, my core beliefs are probably somewhat wrong.
Take the very current situation with free speech. I used to have a lot stronger opinion in support of absolute free speech, now I am more reserved. Principally I believe in absolute free speech still, but that won't work in a non-perfect world
Consider what is exchanged when we speak. We exchange symbols with associated meaning.
The symbols, those are clear enough, but the meaning, that's assumed.
So there is that large assumption that I mean what you mean.
With dead-common subjects it's a safe assumption. With strange subjects the assumption might prove false. Most subjects will fall in the middle somewhere. The assumption will, to some degree, fail. But we will probably pretend that it didn't or simply neglect to consider the possibility.
So there is an unrecognized degree of failure to convey meaning there. A kind of noise.
And that noise compounds every time the words pass from person to person.