How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#121  Postby Cogito ergo sum » February 2nd, 2015, 11:30 pm

HZY wrote:That's good, although rules tend to negate emotions and the free flow of thoughts.



I wouldn't say that these are rules but they are ways to reach a conclusion with the least amount of resistance. Just because it works time and again doesn't mean they are rules persay but that they work at a specific time. All I ask is that you go into a philosophical discourse with your nose in the air and see how far it goes. We must not forget the beauty of the the Socratic method. He did not enter a conversation claiming to know what the other didn't, but he was generally interested in their view.
Cogito ergo sum
Moderator
 
Posts: 174 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 11th, 2014, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: Karl Popper

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#122  Postby Philostudent70 » February 28th, 2015, 6:45 pm

You must always be honest and respectful.
User avatar
Philostudent70
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2015, 6:42 pm

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#123  Postby Belinda » March 5th, 2015, 5:07 am

But being honest and being respectful are sometimes mutually exclusive.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#124  Postby Macherhoniak » April 16th, 2015, 10:24 pm

I agree with all your points except the first. I have met people that dominate the conversation and I am not fond of them. However by them speaking, listeners get the chance to listen and analyze what they are saying. You are more likely to be enlightened by listening then speaking as when speaking you are not obtaining as much new information. But without those who like to hear themselves talk we wouldn't have as good of an understanding of human thought, logic or morals. Now the real question is why does my girlfriend say I'm a bad listener when she talks more than me.
User avatar
Macherhoniak
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 4 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 16th, 2015, 9:57 pm

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#125  Postby EMTe » April 19th, 2015, 7:38 pm

All your words...

They're just an air movement. C'mon folks, get a life. 8)
The penultimate goal of the human is to howl like the wolf.
User avatar
EMTe
 
Posts: 778 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Location: Cracow
Favorite Philosopher: Jessica Fletcher

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#126  Postby Aristocles » April 24th, 2015, 2:49 am

I agree the initial post structure provides for the fruitful beginings. This appears to exclude some and for reasons of a formal approach that has a utility. I also agree the rule breakers need a voice. When all the yins and yangs come together, the common mutual voice with eventually be heard. Is this not the beauty we seek?
User avatar
Aristocles
Contributor
 
Posts: 476 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#127  Postby Cartesian-Wonderer » May 5th, 2015, 5:55 pm

All good suggestions! I often debate in a small group and its amazing how unconvincing one's argument becomes to the other participants when they talk more than they listen. Prioritising listening to someone's view enables you to be in a position to respond concisely and so the conversation does become more productive and progressive, in my experience :D
User avatar
Cartesian-Wonderer
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 5th, 2015, 5:51 pm

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#128  Postby Greta » May 5th, 2015, 11:14 pm

EMTe wrote:All your words...

They're just an air movement. C'mon folks, get a life. 8)

Which is exactly the point - to build a life. Shared personal growth. Theoretically.

At some stages of people's lives they need to reflect and synthesise, at others it's largely about action. When we reflect and think about reality then our subsequent actions will theoretically be done with greater awareness and understanding.
This space left intentionally blank.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5328 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#129  Postby Jklint » May 6th, 2015, 2:34 am

EMTe wrote:All your words...

They're just an air movement. C'mon folks, get a life. 8)


So is music...

Without which life would be a mistake as noted by Nietzsche with whose sentiment I completely concur.

It has a 360 degree panorama which exceeds even the spectrum of words or as Beethoven said "music is a higher revelation than philosophy" an empathy foreign to most people. It was Lewis Thomas who wished to send all the works of J.S.Bach into the Cosmos as the greatest legacy of mankind when we are no-longer around.
Jklint
 
Posts: 1191 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#130  Postby Aristocles » May 6th, 2015, 4:34 am

The Beethoven quote appears off a few octaves.. I would need an argument for the claim music is a higher revelation than philosophy. Agreed, music can be pleasant and even therapeutic, but I cannot imagine a revelation occurring to a higher degree. Maybe I am tone deaf?
User avatar
Aristocles
Contributor
 
Posts: 476 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#131  Postby Jgthomas204 » May 15th, 2015, 10:23 pm

Scott wrote:
Speak Clearly - This may seem obvious, but many people instead try to show off or make their ideas seem stronger by using more complex language. However, you will have most productive conversation by having the least misunderstandings, which you can do by expressing yourself as clearly as possible.



Wish someone would have told this to Carl Marx.
User avatar
Jgthomas204
 
Posts: 62 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 5th, 2015, 10:48 pm

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#132  Postby Lagayscienza » May 16th, 2015, 12:30 am

Jklint wrote:
So is music...

Without which life would be a mistake as noted by Nietzsche with whose sentiment I completely concur.

It has a 360 degree panorama which exceeds even the spectrum of words or as Beethoven said "music is a higher revelation than philosophy" an empathy foreign to most people. It was Lewis Thomas who wished to send all the works of J.S.Bach into the Cosmos as the greatest legacy of mankind when we are no-longer around.


I agree. When I listen to the late Beethoven string quartets, or when I (try to) play the late piano sonatas, I know that Beethoven was right about music. It is a language that philosophy does not speak. Without music human life would be indescribably poorer.
La gaya Scienza
User avatar
Lagayscienza
 
Posts: 679 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
Location: Antipodes
Favorite Philosopher: Neitszche

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#133  Postby Cirrus » April 26th, 2016, 12:24 am

These are good rules, although I think the the fourth rule, "Speak Nicely and Politely", is important enough to override the anti-clutter rule which which forbids posts which say no more than "Thank you". Isn't the amount of clutter avoided by the anti-thanks rule a lesser good than the increase in positivity which "Thank you" posts would generate? Which is more needed here?
User avatar
Cirrus
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 6 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 24th, 2016, 6:32 pm

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#134  Postby Belinda » April 26th, 2016, 7:30 am

Lagayscienza remembered :)
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations

Post Number:#135  Postby RuleOnu » April 13th, 2017, 7:51 pm

Philosphy is an acedemic discipline, with rules and objectives.

Discourse is debate and adversarial in nature.

Rhetoric is the art of discourse wherein one side attempts to construct arguments in order to qualify a point of view.

In philosphic discourse their are opposing propositions, either an affirmation of a proposed proposition versus it's negation.
Or, arguing for one proposition against an opposing proposition.

Examples;

1. The proposition is, "God Exists", one side makes arguments affirming the proposition, and the opposition makes arguments negating the proposition.
2. The propositions are, "theism is true" versus, "atheism is true".

In number one there is one proposition whereby the antagonists jobs are to make arguments for either the affirmation or negation of the proposition, respectively.
In number two the protagonist present arguments for one of two propositions.

I think it's imperative in philosophical discourse to know what logical fallacies are. The worse I see is the "fallacy of relevance". It's difficult to engage in discourse when someone injects a fallacy of relevance into their argument, especially when convinced it's relevant. Another pet peeve is when people use terms incorrectly, again convinced of its relevance. Words have meanings. It's nice when applied correctly.
I'd rather someone use every invective questioning my intelligence than have to deal with logical fallacies on a consistent basis. I grew up playing the dozens so name calling is just part of the game, rhetorical and sometimes fun if done smartly.

Often times articles are rejected even though well cited. Rejection of such citations is a genetic fallacy, attacking the source.

What I'm getting at is that political correctness in discourse should be dissuaded. This doesn't mean we should be disrespectful by attacking things like race, sex or economic status, no. But, just as much as we celebrate ability, we should also be able to address stupidity in the form of incoherent unintelligible comments and arguments.

Rhetorical argumentation(discourse) is strategic. Which sometimes means saying something to elicit a desired(anticipated) response in order to advance a point. While nuanced, I think there's a difference in this approach versus ad homonems many confuse.

This is an open forum. Granted, there are reasonable rules, but argumentation(discourse) is rhetorical, dynamic, passionate and adversarial. I'd hate to get, or give, the impression of engaging with robots.
RuleOnu
 
Posts: 31 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 5th, 2017, 11:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST