Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuamcginnis | Hacker News Reader

What describes being dogmatic about not being dogmatic?

Paradoxical dogmatism.

It's a paradox because dogmatism typically implies a fixed perspective, whereas a refusal to be dogmatic typically suggests an openness to various perspectives.

It's worth noting that this form of dogmatism (e.g. ironic or paradoxical dogmatism) can lead to intellectual arrogance or self-righteousness. If taken to an extreme, an individual can become close-minded about their own beliefs regarding open-mindedness. I see this a lot in today's society, especially amongst many young people who may not have accumulated enough life experience to understand why others might have come to think differently than themselves.

I find myself constantly checking for this pattern. I see it as self delusion.

Average Joe Rogan fan.

This is sort of the twist at the end of Unstable Orbits in the Space of Lies [1]. Turns out that avoiding belief systems is an unusual variety of belief system.

[1] https://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumb...

Contrarianism?

When I think, it leads to thought that is not the first, which immediately leads back to the first thought. What prevents the initial thought? What prevents it from becoming what it was not, before? Why did the thought become what it was not? How much thinking do I do for the next thought to lead back to the first? Which of those thoughts are the first thought and which of them are not?

Its what makes an initial thought lead into the same thought. gasp

  Of the one, or that fiery death that never ends
  To the heart of its description
  Go through great changing of conciseness
  It becomes what becomes the lesser, not to much more and not of us.

  And without whining (or any sad crap)
  One crappy song, you know is very much like this place
  Goes the same way and that is:
  “Thanks to you, and me, it’s super awesome!
  I’m leaving all the bad times behind.“

2π inf^(1/2)

Where the center is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere. Or positronium.

There is a subtle ambiguity here. What does it mean to "not be dogmatic"?

Full contrarianism would be to reject the dogmatic beliefs. "If authority X claims it is true, it must be wrong." You would seek out beliefs that are in opposition to the dogma.

But not being dogmatic might just be aiming for immunity to dogma? "Whatever authority X claims is irrelevant." You might try to evaluate ideas on your own and form beliefs that are uncorrelated with the dogma.

In addition, I'd add that "not being dogmatic" includes the potential of adopting the dogmatic belief. That's because the idea itself was evaluated for more than just the fact that it was dogmatic; though, the associated dogma can still be considered a variable in the evaluation.

Agreed, I meant that as part of uncorrelation. You don't align with or against the dogma, so your beliefs might overlap in some placed and not others.

I forgot to mention a third form of "not being dogmatic" which is closer to my own idiomatic understanding of the phrase. Rather than focusing on your consumption or reaction to prevailing dogma, it is also a useful not to try to be a source of dogma. Don't consider your own beliefs to be "facts" and don't try to become an authority who promotes or evangelizes a new prevailing dogma...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com