You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right? Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable. That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
Comment on Why can't I argue against claims of suffering?
donuts@kbin.social 10 months ago
I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking here, but emotional states like suffering are subjective expressions of feeling, not opinions.
Trying to arguing about some else's experiences with regards to suffering is like trying to argue that someone isn't happy, sad, cold, warm, hungry, thirsty, tired, scared, etc.
As always the ultimate authority on how a person thinks and feels is the person themselves. In other words, you can argue opinions (hopefully based on a foundation of unarguable, objective facts), but it makes no sense to try to argue against another person's feelings.
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 10 months ago
donuts@kbin.social 10 months ago
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right?
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable to others by means of expression.
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?
You have none. How I feel inside is unknowable to others. It is a fundamental truth of subjectivity.
Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued, only uncovered.
Likewise feelings, while subjective, cannot be argued, only expressed. (Again, because the feelings of others are unknowable.)
If you want to argue something, then I recommend arguing subjective opinions, and hopefully you do so based on a bedrock of facts.
That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
Disallowing what? Feelings? And what system?
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 10 months ago
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable…
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well. But that is beside my point. I did’t address why the information is valid or not. I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued…
Have you met humans? We play games all the time. Truth, clarity. It’s the last thing on the mind of 99% of us. That’s a reality that must be acknowledged.
Disallowing what…
Disallowing privileged classes of information. Because our system of talking, comparing notes, synthesizing models, depends upon scrutinizability. Privileged classes of information mangle that.
TootSweet@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Clearly not.
You’re being disingenuous saying in one place “I’m thinking wrong and need you to help me” and another place arguing with people who are answering you. This is flamebait and you’re a troll. Pure and simple.
donuts@kbin.social 10 months ago
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well.
Unless you can read minds, which you can't (even with your tinfoil hat on), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.
I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you're entitled to feel), but it doesn't actually change the objective truth:
Feelings are "excluded from scrutiny" not because "we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy", but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.
If you believe that's not true, then answer this:
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?
If you can't answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.
So now I've lead you to water, and it's up to you whether you drink or not. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.
Zorque@kbin.social 10 months ago
You could also argue that people lie. Again, it's quite hard to prove, as you say, but it's entirely possible. Especially when someone gains sympathy or recompense for that perceived suffering.
Often people of privilege, who lose some of the benefits of their privilege, claim suffering and demand to be treated in a way they prefer. One can't say they don't suffer in some way, especially from their perspective, but one can't say they do either.
donuts@kbin.social 10 months ago
Of course people lie, and they could easily lie about how they're feeling. But what possible basis do you have to argue against what someone else says they're feeling?
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry, for example, how could you possibly make an argument that I'm not?
You could see that I just ate a sandwich, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel hungry. In fact, you could see that I just ate 10 sandwiches, but it's entirely possible for someone to still feel hungry, based on how the brain and human psyche work.
The best case arguement is that a person's actions are seemingly inconsistent with a certain stated feeling: for example a widdow who says that she's crippled with sorrow, only to be caught going on dates with other men. But again, you're not arguing feelings there, you're arguing an opinion about the consistency of behavior.
The feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable to us. Expression (words, facial expressions, body language, behavior, etc) is our only window into the feelings of others.