site banner
LightOnlyComesFromHeat  2yr ago (text post)   2523 thread views

Light Only Comes From Heat

The phrase "light only comes from heat" sounds so judicious. Who wouldn't want a pleasant, decorous argument where everyone respects everyone, no one's feelings are hurt, and plenty of light is generate, but no nasty heat.

Yet, if you think about it, where else does light come from but heat? Things that are very cold give off no light, yet everything that emits light will also be hot. If you don't like heat, you've no desire for light. If you want light, you musk risk heat.

Speaking from my own experience, it is the forceful, honest and clear arguments that have persuaded me, or have at the very least lodged the seed of doubt in my own mind, not those who argue by endlessly trying to flatter me, or search for middle ground, or who pretend to respect my argument more than they actually do.

All truth seekers should expunge this silly cliche from their vocabulary.

I end with the immortal words of John Milton:

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat

-15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That isn't generally how the phrase is employed. Heat, is not I think a synonym for rhetoric. I cannot think of anyone, save perhaps Noam Chomsky, who is not guilty of employing rhetoric and oratory to appeal to our emotions.

In my own personal experience, both as someone who has engaged in arguments and who enjoys listening to them, "heat not light" is used when someone is forcefully stating an unpopular or unfashionable opinion.

And by the way, why is reason "cold"?

I cannot think of anyone, save perhaps Noam Chomsky, who is not guilty of employing rhetoric and oratory to appeal to our emotions.

I get the rest of your post, but holding up the comical atrocity denier Chomsky is hard to take. He uses a neutral tone and series of seemingly sensible statements to justify his favored brand of horrific crimes against humanity. He was a shill for the Khmer Rouge in opposition to people correctly claiming that they were engaged in horrific mass murder.

Chomsky is the worst sort of apologist for mass murder.

Heat is a general pattern of provoking people. It tries to inflame people so they instinctively fall into old patterns or arrange themselves along tribal lines. It is invariably, deeply emotional.

Decisions and behavior driven by emotions are inherently irrational. There may be a rational argument to support the decision or behavior, but that is an after-the-fact rationalization.

Reason is cold because emotion is hot. They are opposite ends of a spectrum, and that carries through into the culturally accepted metaphor.

And by the way, why is reason "cold"?

In terms of etymology, I believe it's because when you're physiologically aroused (sympathetic nervous system, fight-or-flight) increased bloodflow to the extremities makes your skin warmer - "hot-blooded".

To do something "cold-blooded", therefore, is to do it outside a crisis, with time for forethought - "cold-blooded murder", for instance.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats