Ep38 : The Choice Between the Philosophical and the Pragmatic
b"This episode takes us, for the second time, back to November 14th, 2012. After a discussion Jad and I had regarding abstract arguments, we diverged even further into the realm of pragmatic vs. philosophical arguments.\\n\\nThe basic idea is considering whether it makes more sense to present an argument that appeals to a moral objective or a practical one. For example, if one's intent is to dissuade another from starting a war, the philosophical argument might be to illustrate the deaths likely to result from said war and to otherwise discuss the immorality of the act. The pragmatic argument might be to illustrate the high costs of the war. While both arguments may be aimed at preventing said war, only the philosophical argument will hold up indefinitely (as least from a pacifist's point of view). But on the other hand, what's the point of the philosophical argument if we live in a society unwilling to think philosophically?\\n\\nMaterial from Podcast\\nMusic\\n\\nMasters of War by Bob Dylan.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nTranscript of Podcast\\n\\nKevin: Hello and welcome back to yet another Throwback Thursday episode of the JK Podcast, and anti-authoritarian free speech podcast dedicated to liberty, humanity, and equality for all people. This episode takes us - for the second time - back to November 14th, 2012. After a discussion Jad and I had regarding abstract arguments, we diverged even further into the realm of pragmatic versus philosophical arguments. The basic ideas considering whether it makes more sense to present an argument that appeals to a moral objective, or to a practical one. \\n\\nFor example, if one's intent is to dissuade another from starting a war, the philosophical argument might be to illustrate the deaths likely to result from said war, and otherwise discuss the immorality of the act. The pragmatic argument might be to illustrate the high costs associated with the war. While both arguments may be aimed at preventing said war, only the philosophical argument will hold up indefinitely - at least from a pacifist's point of view. \\n\\nBut on the other hand, what's the point of the philosophical argument if we live in a society unwilling to think philosophically in the first place? It's an old episode and it's a short episode, so grab a beer, sit back, and relax. I'm Kevin Ludlow, co-creator Jad Davis is the other voice in the episode - welcome back to the JK Podcast. \\n\\nJad: I was listening to our - I think it was the 10/24[?], the first time we had Tom on - \\n\\nKevin: OK.\\n\\nJad: And I listened to it a few times and I started to come up with like a you know, sort of a pattern, more of a pattern of our interaction where it's funny, we're talking about things - I'm hitting the philosophy side and you're pointing out like - well that's you know, I totally agree with you you know, your points are sound and their philosophically correct. Most people don't like to think about that, or don't talk about - so here's the same thing that is convincing to people who are - they're going to get caught by the ethical argument, but they will get caught by this argument and that's why you know, I was thinking about - you were saying as for that recording - you were talking about how much success you have and how you know, people just are really complimentary and constantly giving you feedback about how revolutionary your ideas are - \\n\\nKevin: To keep my head from overly inflating here, revolutionary is certainly rather exaggerated. But on the other hand, I have enjoyed many compliments regarding my general willingness to publicly present unpopular views. In general, I've found that while many people may hold the ideal of self governance, few seem willing to proselytize those positions. \\n\\nJad: - whereas the experience from my side and Tom's side is pretty much like just blank stares and anger, and I was thinking that that's probably - that probably has a lot to do with it. I mean I think you know, it's kind of obvious,"