I used to be enamoured with thought experiments to parse out truths which are otherwise difficult or impossible to ascertain but they have severe weaknesses/deficits for the inquirer, beyond the obvious that people may act very differently in an existential situation to how they think they would.
One is when it comes in the form of a question: for instance, asking a woman her preferences implies insecurity (reactiveness, dependence, psychological or practical subordination, uncertainty, even fetishism and masochism), as if her current and stated preferences have great inherent importance rather than value coming internally and this can subtly influence her feelings, resulting in an answer more distant from the symbol associated with you. The question may also degrade her, you and symbols associated with you, subconsciously or consciously priming her to give a particular answer. The asking of a question can very easily poison the inquiry.
Further, a thought experiment is answered by someone within the world as it exists, who has necessarily been deeply influenced by external factors, muddying the answer that they would "naturally" give in the absence of "external influence" (so far as that's possible). So the thought experiment is implicitly passive in accepting the implications of the existing order, thus not masculine and not attractive. This could easily distort the answer in a thought experiment about masculinity.
Also, the framing is arbitrary (why is x scenario more valid than y scenario in terms of ascertaining truth?) and may distort key norms that are otherwise essential (“what if you grew up without your father?”; does this more get to the core of your nature or does it entirely distort it?)
A thought experiment can justify anything by contrasting morality with (for example) supposed great or unlimited pleasure, juxtaposing our deepest values against each other, revealing what was formerly absolute to be relative. The immoral choice in the thought experiment can be associated with said pleasure which inherently heightens it, makes the formerly unthinkable thinkable and weakens aversion. "Let's say you were blind, trapped in a cell for the rest of your life and you could have your dick sucked by the best fellatio artist on the planet once a week? Would you? Yes? What if the best fellatio artist were a man? What if you weren't initially aware that he was a man? Would you request it stops after you found out?" Even if one said "I would stop/I wouldn't start", the mind wonders whether one would actually desist in such a situation or whether the pleasure/relief would break one's morals, especially in such a squalid, hopeless scenario. Thus after contemplating that thought experiment, homosexuality is more justified in one's mind, or at least less alien than it was in the beginning. And "If that's understandable, even acceptable, then what if..." etc. etc.
"Thought experiment" also sounds nerdy, as if you exist in a sterile realm of voyeuristic "pure ideas" rather than physical reality, cucked by your own imagination. Perhaps philosophy inherently tends towards nihilism, hedonism and suicide.
One is when it comes in the form of a question: for instance, asking a woman her preferences implies insecurity (reactiveness, dependence, psychological or practical subordination, uncertainty, even fetishism and masochism), as if her current and stated preferences have great inherent importance rather than value coming internally and this can subtly influence her feelings, resulting in an answer more distant from the symbol associated with you. The question may also degrade her, you and symbols associated with you, subconsciously or consciously priming her to give a particular answer. The asking of a question can very easily poison the inquiry.
Further, a thought experiment is answered by someone within the world as it exists, who has necessarily been deeply influenced by external factors, muddying the answer that they would "naturally" give in the absence of "external influence" (so far as that's possible). So the thought experiment is implicitly passive in accepting the implications of the existing order, thus not masculine and not attractive. This could easily distort the answer in a thought experiment about masculinity.
Also, the framing is arbitrary (why is x scenario more valid than y scenario in terms of ascertaining truth?) and may distort key norms that are otherwise essential (“what if you grew up without your father?”; does this more get to the core of your nature or does it entirely distort it?)
A thought experiment can justify anything by contrasting morality with (for example) supposed great or unlimited pleasure, juxtaposing our deepest values against each other, revealing what was formerly absolute to be relative. The immoral choice in the thought experiment can be associated with said pleasure which inherently heightens it, makes the formerly unthinkable thinkable and weakens aversion. "Let's say you were blind, trapped in a cell for the rest of your life and you could have your dick sucked by the best fellatio artist on the planet once a week? Would you? Yes? What if the best fellatio artist were a man? What if you weren't initially aware that he was a man? Would you request it stops after you found out?" Even if one said "I would stop/I wouldn't start", the mind wonders whether one would actually desist in such a situation or whether the pleasure/relief would break one's morals, especially in such a squalid, hopeless scenario. Thus after contemplating that thought experiment, homosexuality is more justified in one's mind, or at least less alien than it was in the beginning. And "If that's understandable, even acceptable, then what if..." etc. etc.
"Thought experiment" also sounds nerdy, as if you exist in a sterile realm of voyeuristic "pure ideas" rather than physical reality, cucked by your own imagination. Perhaps philosophy inherently tends towards nihilism, hedonism and suicide.
