andrewducker | Conversation versus Doctrine

Conversation versus Doctrine

Joe, who I am (from time to time) proud to have as a friend, has written an interesting piece on why he prefers conversations to books.

I don't agree with everything he's written, but it's definitely thought provoking.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Nonono... I'm not saying books 'indoctrinate', I'm saying they're 'doctrine'.

Indoctrination is the application of doctrine. To engage with doctrine is to have it to attempt to indoctrinate you. To converse with someone (or something) is to engage with it, to "turn around" (i.e. look at the converse of) the concepts between you.

Works for me.

The implication is too active, however, and you've inferred something not present in my post. I'm taking doctrine to mean 'something that is taught', and I'm saying nothing about how effectively or insidiously it is learnt.

I agree that doctrine is something that is taught, but I don't say anything about effectiveness or insidiousness either.

"Something that is taught" sounds active to me, by the way.

Your use of the word 'indoctination' is far too much of a verb. :) It implies a level of activity and communication (the ability to indoctrinate) on the part of books that I specifically don't feel they possess. Which is the point of my article.

No, 'something that is taught' concerns only the thing that is taught, not how it is taught, and not how the indoctrination (a specialised form of communication) happens.

It implies a level of activity and communication (the ability to indoctrinate) on the part of books that I specifically don't feel they possess. Which is the point of my article.

I thought the point of your article was that you preferred forms of communication that led to further thoughts and suggestions for self-education. Leaving aside the fact that I think that many books do this very well, I don't see anything in your piece that says that books don't have the power to indoctrinate.

From what little I know about brainwashing and rabble-rousing, it tends to be works that are full of statement (as general as possible) and forthrightness, with no room for questioning, that are the most effective at making people simply believe.

Conversations might lead to people blindly following you, but if you're encouraging them to think it seems less likely.

Andy: I don't see anything in your piece that says that books don't have the power to indoctrinate.

Books *might* have the power to indoctrinate, sure. Like you say, if they are about general statements, and general statements can brainwash, then sure. But that topic is not an inherent part of my post, nor does it even interest me. :)

I like conversation because I like conversation. Lots of the time, I'm not even trying to win people over, because I recognise the purpose in dissent and individuality.

The fun is often in the argument, rather than the conclusion, too. Books, OTOH, present arguments and conclusions, and there's no way to continue the conversation outside the book.

The inability to continue the conversation is the thrust of my post and behind my dislike of books. Not the possibility that they can indoctrinate.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Conversation versus Doctrine

no subject

Seems like the most applicable verb

Re: Seems like the most applicable verb

I disagree

Re: I disagree

You never said that

Re: You never said that