49:30 He didn't abandon criticality when he decided to be obedient. Rather criticality led him to the conclusion of obedient behavior in that instance of analysis. Because being critical is not synonymous with being defiant. One can test a foundation and find it to be solid. There's nothing contrary in his choice. If being critical leads to defiance more often than not. It's only because there are many more ways to be wrong than there are to be right. So in analyzing claims and propositions one is more likely to find conclusions that lead them to defiant behavior than obedient behavior. He's drawn too sharply here as being disagreeable for conviction's sake. But he's not saying things like "I won't give them the satisfaction of me running away." If he were that spiteful he would have refused to consume the hemlock himself (forcing them to kill him). He got to where he ended up because he was consistent in his reasoning. Now one could say that this may be an example of either consistency or criticality leading to one's inevitable downfall. But then we run into the issue of anecdotal evidence and poor sample sizes. The only thing I think one can correctly take from this is if we are being properly intellectually honest in our approaches, that we will have no idea where that ends up. That a preconceived notion is of a kind doomed to fail us.
thank you very very much love it
49:30 He didn't abandon criticality when he decided to be obedient. Rather criticality led him to the conclusion of obedient behavior in that instance of analysis. Because being critical is not synonymous with being defiant. One can test a foundation and find it to be solid. There's nothing contrary in his choice. If being critical leads to defiance more often than not. It's only because there are many more ways to be wrong than there are to be right. So in analyzing claims and propositions one is more likely to find conclusions that lead them to defiant behavior than obedient behavior.
He's drawn too sharply here as being disagreeable for conviction's sake. But he's not saying things like "I won't give them the satisfaction of me running away." If he were that spiteful he would have refused to consume the hemlock himself (forcing them to kill him). He got to where he ended up because he was consistent in his reasoning.
Now one could say that this may be an example of either consistency or criticality leading to one's inevitable downfall. But then we run into the issue of anecdotal evidence and poor sample sizes. The only thing I think one can correctly take from this is if we are being properly intellectually honest in our approaches, that we will have no idea where that ends up. That a preconceived notion is of a kind doomed to fail us.
2 28