In this post, I will assume a methodological flow beginning from the establishment of what should ideally constitute the dialectical process, and using our knowledge of the female cognitive process and decision-making correlates in developing a dialectical manipulation theory suited for females. With that said, it is obvious that this post is assuming key differences between the cognitive structures between men and women, at the neurological level. I will also hypothesize some cognitive routines men and women might use foundational to their decisions, regressing from some obvious economic and social behaviors. The analysis assumed will be post hoc, as I will try to theorize the underlying sociological, psychological and anthropological mechanisms from correlations that manifest superficially.
With the epistemology set straight, I want to shed light on the dialectic method of discourse. Dialectics differ from logic-oriented debate in two key domains – one, in the fact that it’s premises aren’t necessarily rational and two, in its ability to constrict the logical flow to one direction only i.e., deductively. This has prompted some people to dub dialectics as the “corruption of deductive reasoning” – I agree wholly to this notion. While the contemporary dialectic has been attributed largely to Hegel, the foundations for this sort of epistemological discourse was laid by Kant in his Critiques. The popular attribution to Hegel might stem from the fact that this method, of corrupting the reasoning of the subject, has been politically weaponized by later philosophers like Marx and its frequent use among conspiracy theorists. The Hegelian dialectic, or more abstractly, the Kantian dialectic, when weaponized, provides the illusion of freedom of choice while simultaneously convincing the subject of the apparent rationality of their conclusions. In other words, the subject whose reasoning is reduced to a dialectic one may be easily manipulated. But there still exists a vulnerability in this seemingly fool-proof technique.
Individuals who are in high possession of rational faculties will see through the irrational premises easily. The premises often used in the dialectical method, or more accurately, the thesis and anti-thesis, are rhetorical. They appeal to the emotional faculties of the subject. I, for instance, who considers myself to be a rational individual prefers to avoid employing rhetorical devices in my speech and writing. Why? Because rhetorics are innately fallacious in their appeals to emotions and they leave a lot of information open to interpretation. They do this by reconciling with the cultural system operating around the subject. A mastery of rhetorical dialectic might only be accomplished through a post hoc analysis of the target cultural system.
dialectical thinking is the corruption of deductive reasoning…
Linda Sarsour, a famous name among the far-left and fellow of the Jihad movement had spoken in UCBerkeley about what she believes were hard topics of the day – addressing them through her own vigilante of justice. After what felt like a heartfelt call to action on white supremacy and prejudice against the Muslim community of America, she boldly incited Jihad in the name of Allah to fight the alt-right and the Trump administration. The brainwashed liberals of Berkeley played along as you’d expect of any ideology with basis in popular opinions of the day. To those who have witnessed the insidiousness of Islam, here you will find reason for the pressing questions you might have been wanting to ask. To those who have not read or experienced Islam, you will find factual arguments based in sociology, psychology and anthropology to the many debatable notions surrounding this religion. Platforms for open debate are often ostracized from the mainstream in submission to pressure (or more often, threats) from the Muslim community.
Islam lives for conquest, facilitated by a militant theological system that exploits its own people for the superficial gain of Allah – only to reward them under their paradigm
an aggressive agenda-driven movement can never peacefully coexist in secularity, especially if that agenda comes from the ideology of Islam
One evening in Chicago, I’d probably just returned from an exhausting day out and settled in to read the news. This was back in late 2016 and the trending stories of the day were either about the elections which we know as among the most bizarre in American history or the infamous travel ban, then dubbed the Muslim ban. Shortly after the ban had been called into effect, an almost spontaneous response from the local community followed. I read a story how people had already gathered and continued gathering in huge numbers outside Terminal 5 to try and stop the ban. Seeing I had nothing interesting to do, I put on my trusty jacket and headed out and took the next Blue Line service to O’Hare for some investigative journalism. This is where I was greeted by all kinds of warming chants. They were at best superficial and rhetorical but that’s what makes protests tick let alone the fact the crowd were predominantly liberals. There were more opinions than facts being pushed. One chant stood out, it went “this is what democracy looks like” only said in a slightly cringe-y yet poetic tone. Well, if there’s one thing I could do by going back in time would be helping them see their own hypocrisy.
Is it democratic to grant freedom to a group that might potentially take away our freedom? These are moral conundrums left on the hanging. These conundrums gain in controversy with passing time from our reluctance to initially approach these issues – because they’re controversial. It challenges hard-etched moral constructs our society has grown to embrace and be a part of. Ever since the cultural movements that shook France and the rest of Europe, the Renaissance and Enlightenment have left (the vast majority of) Christians indoctrinated with the civil qualities of equality and tolerance. The West has almost become synonymous with these civil liberties we take for granted.
I read this somewhere but I’m unable to trace it back to its author,
diversity is not our strength if there is no common cause
Now this is one of the social idiosyncrasies that often get away without being challenged. How many times, just how many times have we been inspired by the false notion that unique is better? We often see Hollywood, and people in general tell us being unique or having a unique identity or unique attributes to your personality often gets you somewhere special nobody else typically dare wanders into. Does this all even make sense or ring any bells of misguided societal perceptions?
hasty generalizations and our infatuation to novelty can make unique seem like an improvement on the current
I have seen many a times in the news and media how some uniqueness in an invention or candidate or development of a story can often be associated with some much-awaited breakthrough or exciting feature or achievement. I am not challenging here that all things unique and out of the regular is always up to no good, but instead that all things unique are not necessarily up to good. The media for some weird reason or the other seems to be pretty darn good at doing this, glorifying uniqueness. Some high school kid makes a project that stands out from the rest and is instantly applauded – with little to no thought of the actual scientific validity of the project or the research that went behind prior to its manifestation on public fronts.
Again, I am not saying good projects or inventions don’t deserve the recognition they deserve, no not at all. I just would like to see a little more thought spared to something – project, invention or what not before people blatantly promote it for others to see and recognize. Do you remember that one time a high school boy apparently invented a clock? (per media reports, not my words) And the jacked-up-on-several-rounds-of-Jägerbombs media would go out of their way to surface a buzz among the gullible folk – the kind of people that will easily buy into anything you tell them without checking or challenging the credibility of your sources.
the more people informed of rumor, the more potential transmitters and therefore potential for a higher rate of transmission
We are supposed to be talking logic this time. More specifically, I’d like to talk logic and people – how they use and understand logic.
While most people aren’t necessarily logical, they seem to have a decent grasp of what is logic. You and I are capable of everyday reasoning. But we find ourselves making decisions seeing past conventional logic – and it really has more to do with human psychology. Sometimes, nasty people exploit this loophole to win an argument, make a point, or even manipulate us like some theatrical puppet.