What are some strategies to force someone’s hand regarding their intellectual arrogance/humility?
- Anonymous8 months ago
To force their 'hand' in what way? Without specifying that, your question is so ambiguous that it is essentially useless.
Once again - another EPIC FAIL of a question
- tizzoseddyLv 68 months ago
I guess you mean that you want to know how to make them realize their arrogance, or admit to it. Good luck. All you can do is point out any of their errors that you are able to detect. I would try not be very confrontational, or try to humiliate the person. That will only make them more defensive. Rather, try to be measured and reasonable. Present evidence and ask what he/she thinks about it.
- Anonymous8 months ago
Understanding "arrogance" as ad-, to, + rogare, to ask, = arrogance as an "asking" for self that which is irreal or unreal. As Simone Beauvoir said (paraphrasing), "It's not arrogance if you're right." Therefore, arrogance is a "forcing" of a position without corroborating truthness.
Some strategies: understand yourself what are the ontological and epistemological framings of a given "asking" or positing. Truth agreed upon as axiomatic will yet, per Godel's Incompleteness proofs, develop unprovable inferences, i.e., true and false claims that are arrogated without any ability (save a further, second-degree framing) to provide evidence.
Example of arrogance: "I know God is not"--a paraphrase of Sartre; therefore, simple logic re epistemology and the illogical psychologism of claiming to know an absolute negative. In such cases, such illogicality simply indicates fourth-rate philosophy.
Of course, there are many other examples, e.g. in sciences, religions, and arts.
A second strategy, based on the Godelian logic, is to invite epistemological investigation, based on curiosity re the epistemological limits of the arrogating.
A third strategy, based on e.g. Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," is to examine the arrogant claims in the light of human psychology (e.g., solipsism as a developmental fixation).
A fourth strategy, based on later Husserl's use of sense and reference, is to develop sense (even spiritualized sensibility) as ontological, and map the sensibility re claim with reference as epistemological; this ~ = bijection of axiomization and system to epistemological bases of "truth." In no case of sufficiently complex axiomization are there to be found unshakeable arrogant (and even humble) truth-claims or falsity-notings. (Cf Hume, and Kant's bifurcated response, which a) assumes a Noumenon and b) a pre-conditioning of phenomenal sensibility per space, time, and causality.)
A fifth strategy, based on one or more of foregoing strategies, is to note such proofs of incompleteness or even of facticity for the arrogating one. In which case(s), if the response of the individual who claims she's a poached egg is to reframe (well, maybe I don't look like a poached egg, but those poached eggs are just one kind of poached egg...I'm another), then one might have to revert to strategies such as Locke's and later Husserl's, or Scharfstein's insights, that the arrogance is driving the philosophy, and not the other way around (i.e., Beauvoir's point).
- ♜Ⓢⓚⓨ ❍ Ⓓⓞⓥⓔ ♜Lv 48 months ago
To me intellectual arrogance equals believing you know so strongly that no one can alter it. Lesser minds do not possess the key and I believe no one does. The only person which can change such a stubborn mind is that mind itself. The best anyone can do is place within reach material which that mind can weigh. You cannot persuade such a mind who is elevated so. It must persuade itself.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 8 months ago
Force their hand? Why is it called a waterfall?