Is intellectual validation a necessary motivator to you?

even

Could one say that the vast majority of philosophical discussions, essays and academic papers are a result of the desire for intellectual validation? Who could deny that the vast majority of philosophical works would have never been written if it would have been certain that no one will ever read them?

Aren't our minds at our sharpest when we know we are being watched? Could it be that without validation, most academic works would lose shape and form, succumb into the claws of stagnation and perhaps worst of all, not be produced at all? Validation, especially that of peers, can serve as a form of feedback. A signal which may show the content is interesting and not erroneous.

But is that truly why we seek it?

Let's consider intellectual validation a subset of social validation, and social validation a necessary precursor to survival. If an arguer seeks intellectual validation in a rational discussion, aren't those efforts to argue automatically rendered irrational, because the desire for acceptance is an animalistic feature?

Do you think that gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a feasible undertaking? What do you think about validation in general?

god must be atheist

Is intellectual validation a necessary motivator to you? — even

Would you ask the question if it weren't for you?

god must be atheist

Let's consider intellectual validation a subset of social validation, — even

I don't know how that is possible. I can say something that is really smart to some people, but really stupid to some other people at the same time and in the same respect. "You can validate yourself to some of the people all of the time, to all of the people some of the time, but you can't validate yourself to all of the people all of the time." -- There, I put a 70s spin on it for you.

god must be atheist

social validation a necessary precursor to survival. — even

I don't see how that is a necessary condition. What's a social invalidation? The word just does not fit the concept of "excommunication" or non-acceptance. Much like social validation is automantic; you have to work hard to not get it.

god must be atheist

What do you think about validation in general? — even

I don't understand your question. This entire "validation" thing bothers me. It's so 1970s.

Assertiveness training. Women's liberation. Gay people being a reality. Stop the Viet Nam war. Let's have sex. Listen to "Dark Side of the Moon" or to "Stairway to Heaven". Disco sucks. Validate things. Get a higher education and a well-paying, secure job. The "Me" generation.

ChatteringMonkey

Do you think that gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a feasible undertaking? — even

No, we will never have an interest in say counting the number of straws in a random haystack. We need some motivation for gaining knowledge... and social validation is certainly often one of those I'd say.

If an arguer seeks intellectual validation in a rational discussion, aren't those efforts to argue automatically rendered irrational, because the desire for acceptance is an animalistic feature? — even

No, if "validation points" are given only for good argumentation, then it doesn't really matter where the motivation comes from... good argumentation is good argumentation. The underlying desire is less important than the criteria that are being used to grant satisfaction of the desire.

even

↪god must be atheist

If my argument is valid, then my post is certainly not exempt from its conclusions.

↪god must be atheist

That's precisely why I differentiated intellectual validation from social validation.

While most intellectual validation is social validation, not all social validation is intellectual validation.

↪god must be atheist

Are you trying to argue that social validation does not increase one's status within the socioeconomic hierarchy, or are you trying to argue that a high placement within the socioeconomic hierarchy does not increase one's chances of survival?

↪god must be atheist

This entire reply reeks of ignorance.

The concepts of social validation and normative social influence are well studied and play a critical role in modern psychological paradigms.

even

↪ChatteringMonkey

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be alluding to the thought that as long as a result is satisfactory (good argumentation), the internal reason for why one has achieved the result is irrelevant?

If so, it is certainly an interesting point. However, I see a potential flaw with it. It would appear to me that withholding the true reasons from yourself for why you desire to achieve a particular result would lead to ingenuity towards yourself.

"I volunteer at the church because I like to spread the word of God" and "I volunteer at the church because spreading the word of God makes me feel validated by like-minded people".

The second reason has introspective soundness to it, and the first one does not. A person who would use the second justification is far more confident with who they are as a person. And as a result, that person would be more likely to remain motivated in their undertaking to achieve the desired result.

ChatteringMonkey

↪even

It's irrelevant to it being good argumentation or to it being automatically rendered irrational as you put it.

As to being honest with youself regarding your motivations, I'd agree, I think it's better to be clear to yourself about what your motivations are so you don't end up going down a path that you don't really want.

Teo

Validation is born from loss, whatever kind it is and thus exists as a fear removing tool. It is helpful as it holds experience which is very important.

Intellectual validation might and is good to be seen as a beneficial to the group (as a organisation which has a main goal) method, which people use in order to move forward.

christian2017

↪even

Apes can exist in societies of up to about 150. They do communicate to some extent. Part of survival for groups of animals is that some animals have more power or knowledgable influence at times. Its a perpetual dance that flows through life constantly. For many of us if we could just work a productive non shitty job and go home and play cheap video games we would be just fine with that. It didn't turn out that way for many of us.

RegularGuy

↪even

I think you’re mostly correct about the vast majority of intellectuals. After taking my first philosophy course my senior year of high school at the local college, I had a romantic dream of getting my philosophy degree in Chicago and after graduation living a life of asceticism, working as a dishwasher by day and retiring to my studio apartment filled with books that I would spend the rest of my life studying to gain a godlike knowledge. I never attained such lofty ideals, and I would argue that this would actually have been MORE selfish than seeking intellectual validation. It may be somewhat selfish to seek validation, but the exchange of ideas is actually necessary to the functioning of a healthy community.

It turned out that I do want validation, but I also want to learn from others. The moral thing to do (which I must admit isn’t always easy) is to share your ideas humbly and take criticism constructively. This is the ideal that I and most people I have encountered fail so miserably at on a daily basis.

SophistiCat

Let's consider intellectual validation a subset of social validation, and social validation a necessary precursor to survival. If an arguer seeks intellectual validation in a rational discussion, aren't those efforts to argue automatically rendered irrational, because the desire for acceptance is an animalistic feature? — even

That's a problematic reasoning. You can by the same token reduce everything to "animalistic features" - we are animals, after all; we are also physical bodies, so you could reduce everything to "physical features" - and so on. I am not denying the validity of such reductions, but the conclusion that you draw from this move is what is problematic.

PS This is actually a variation on Stove's Worst Argument in the World:

We can know things only
* as they are related to us
* under our forms of perception and understanding
* insofar as they fall under our conceptual schemes,
etc.
So,
we cannot know things as they are in themselves. — James Franklin, Stove's Discovery of the Worst Argument in the World (2002)

Here you could restate your argument thus:

Our motivations are, in the final analysis, produced by our evolved biological faculties; therefore our motivations are irrational.

The first part is not terribly problematic; it is therefore that does not follow.

alcontali

Do you think that gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a feasible undertaking? — even

If you know upfront that the knowledge will be useful, it will most likely only be very moderately useful. The reward is proportional with the risk you take. Since you cannot reasonably expect any reward for high-risk knowledge projects, you will need to gain knowledge primarily for the sake of knowledge.

That is why I believe in a well-balanced portfolio of acquiring very vocational knowledge that is immediately useful along with high-risk knowledge-acquisition projects that will probably never pay off.

But then again, if you follow that strategy for a decade or longer, it is quite likely that one of the high-risk projects will unexpectedly pay off anyway.

When I started reading up on bitcoin in 2013, I had no immediate use for any knowledge on elliptic-curve cryptography. I just happened to bump into it and I felt that it was fascinating. The same for zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge. These subjects are intriguing but certainly not vocationally useful ... until they are.

RegularGuy

That is why I believe in a well-balanced portfolio of acquiring very vocational knowledge that is immediately useful along with high-risk knowledge-acquisition projects that will probably never pay off. — alcontali

Agreed. I started my education with high-risk knowledge-acquisition projects (philosophy), but I have spent the last months to years teaching myself trading, specifically on the Foreign Exchange but the skills also transfer to other asset classes including crypto-currencies. It’s not get rich quick stuff but more like calculated risk investing for the long term. I plan on passing this knowledge down to my more gifted of my two sons, and I am actively managing my older boy’s IRA.

Is intellectual validation a necessary motivator to you?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions