How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations
-
- Posts: 125
- Joined: October 7th, 2008, 1:42 pm
- Location: nr. Leigh on Sea, Essex UK
- Contact:
I`m trying to respond but your sentences have a very unusual construction - The two of us are past the point of explaining something which I know? If that does make sense(?), surely it`s ment only for you to understand its meaning? What do you mean by guideless philosophy, because that seems an unusual expression? Do you mean philosophy which speaks immediately of truth, rather than taking people on a more gradual journey?, philosophy which isn`t guided, or philosophy which you think cannot be guided? Ruleless "philosophy"(?), a philosopher that might apply more than one set of rules according to the circumstances which the issue presents? It can only mean that, surely? I`m not even sure from this what your considering would qualify as a rule? How do you cool down philosophy to its core temperature? I know that you know what you mean, but to me it`s still only misleading(?) Neither of us are explaining anything, I understand that part, but I suppose I just think that you`ve begun to do a far better job of this than me. I can clarify my last post, or, at least try to.
-
- Posts: 125
- Joined: October 7th, 2008, 1:42 pm
- Location: nr. Leigh on Sea, Essex UK
- Contact:
I`m trying to respond but your sentences have a very unusual construction - The two of us are past the point of explaining something which I know? If that does make sense(?), surely it`s ment only for you to understand its meaning? What do you mean by guideless philosophy, because that seems an unusual expression? Do you mean philosophy which speaks immediately of truth, rather than taking people on a more gradual journey?, philosophy which isn`t guided, or philosophy which you think cannot be guided? Ruleless "philosophy"(?), a philosopher that might apply more than one set of rules according to the circumstances which the issue presents? It can only mean that, surely? I`m not even sure from this what your considering would qualify as a rule? How do you cool down philosophy to its core temperature? I know that you know what you mean, but to me it`s still only misleading(?) Neither of us are explaining anything, I understand that part, but I suppose I just think that you`ve begun to do a far better job of this than me. I can clarify my last post, or, at least try to.
-
- Posts: 125
- Joined: October 7th, 2008, 1:42 pm
- Location: nr. Leigh on Sea, Essex UK
- Contact:
I`m trying to respond but your sentences have a very unusual construction - The two of us are past the point of explaining something which I know? If that does make sense(?), surely it`s ment only for you to understand its meaning? What do you mean by guideless philosophy, because that seems an unusual expression? Do you mean philosophy which speaks immediately of truth, rather than taking people on a more gradual journey?, philosophy which isn`t guided, or philosophy which you think cannot be guided? Ruleless "philosophy"(?), a philosopher that might apply more than one set of rules according to the circumstances which the issue presents? It can only mean that, surely? I`m not even sure from this what your considering would qualify as a rule? How do you cool down philosophy to its core temperature? I know that you know what you mean, but to me it`s still only misleading(?) Neither of us are explaining anything, I understand that part, but I suppose I just think that you`ve begun to do a far better job of this than me. I can clarify my last post, or, at least try to.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: May 19th, 2010, 10:51 am
-
- Posts: 125
- Joined: October 7th, 2008, 1:42 pm
- Location: nr. Leigh on Sea, Essex UK
- Contact:
In this place of conversation we can never assume that at any given time a contributor hasn`t perhaps considerably more to say in support of his speculations(?)
I agree in essense with what I feel you`re probably trying to say/have said, or I wouldn`t have indeed realized it, throughout. I believe ego, and social programming, to be the biggest obsticles to genuine insight, that`s to say uncontrolled ego, for it`s obviously always required to some degree - I appreciate that our ego is what enables us to escape the truth of ourselves, and therefore, truths generally. I would suspect that those of us with this capacity for genuine and novel insight probably also possess the capacity to articulate it, or at least as well as anyone else could, with encouragement, and the right questions asked(?)
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: May 19th, 2010, 10:51 am
Really? I have alot to say about this and many other points you hit on but I need to take care of something first.I had to bookmark your quote because i'll forget what the hell I wanted to converse you about.I'll probably do this alot so don't take offence,it's nothing personal.Hell sometimes I never even get back to the quote,it's almost as if i'm trying to engage that person in some strange psychological game of charades.I'll talk to you later discodave.In this place of conversation we can never assume that at any given time a contributor hasn`t perhaps considerably more to say in support of his speculations
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
This is a good question. To communicate effective and avoid talking past each other; it's important to not only listen and genuinely try to understand the other person's questions but also to respond to the questions.Jackowens in another thread wrote:I went over your "How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations" and found especially interesting, in light of the problem I had with Pjkeely (and starting to have with you) is your point about asking questions. What's missing is pointing out the need to answer asked questions. I saw absolutely nothing about that. Why that striking imbalance?
Of course, sometimes questions can be unclear, loaded or even unanswerable. The solution here might be to respond to the question with a followup question. For instance, person A may ask, "When do you think Bobby stopped beating his wife?" Person B may think this is a loaded question but can respond productively, "I think that question is loaded with the assumption that Bobby has beaten his wife at all; is that the case? Do you believe Bobby has beaten his wife? Do you have any evidence or argument to support the proposition that Bobby has ever beaten his wife?" Much like the rest of discussion, the point isn't to ignore the question or assume what was meant by an unclear or loaded question just to get past the question and get back to one's own rants but rather to use the principle of charity and followup questions to productively continue the discussion.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: June 15th, 2010, 12:52 am
thanksontologic_conceptualist wrote:It is my belief that from what I've seen not just here but many other philosophy sites, remember not to confuse philosophy with psycology, believe it or not, it can get close, but remember no matter what, never judge, just because your personal philosophy sucks does not mean the other persons does & be open minded with an immagination and a great sense of humor, this is philosophy, "What is being", I love listening to others & looking into their souls, even though I feel I am complete on many levels, I always end up learning more about myself & that is fun !!!
- Im4ever
- Posts: 28
- Joined: October 26th, 2010, 3:24 pm
RE: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations
First, in all my correspondence (snail mail and e-mail), I compose the correspondence, original and responses, in my WP program, then cut and paste them to either the final document (snail mail) or e-mail that I am sending. I did the same for this site. It impacted my responses to my original post because I overlooked the prohibition policy regarding cut and paste when I signed up and read the rules. Due to constraints on my leisure time (10 hour workdays, weekend play-dates with my grandson, and of course working on the list of 10,000 projects I would like to complete before I die) I did not discover the reason my posts were being rejected (by reviewing the rules governing the site) until yesterday.
I see the necessity of this rule (to prevent blatant abuse of the site by self promoting new members, who spam all, then move on). Apparently this prohibition will end when I have 10 posts.
Second, there is also a prohibition to posting links in responses until I have 10 posts. Since many of my responses list links as references to facts I use in my responses (mostly to other reference sites, such as Wikipedia, etc.), I will be unable to post full responses to this post until I can include references to URLs in my postings.
Therefore, until I have accumulated 10 posts to this site, I will have a limited ability to respond to postings on the thread I started (see "Philosophical Hypothesis for review and comment" under "General Philosophy Forum"). I apologize for any inconvenience this may create for fellow readers.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: November 25th, 2010, 10:28 am
Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations
by Scott Hughes
Philosophical discussions are often not very productive, one reason is that we spend much more energy towards justifying our own position rather than trying to find the truth, and in the process sentiments get involved. The suggestion made by you can go a long way towards making the discussions more productive.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 6:23 am
Anyway,and with great respect, who thinks utalitarianism encourages barbarism?
Thinker
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: February 22nd, 2011, 12:42 am
Re: How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations
Is it inappropriate to stop "listening" when, for example, a Christian begins to lecture me the existence of God?Scott wrote:Listen - Most importantly, you need to listen as well as you can to the other people in the discussion. Many people talk too much and listen too little. Ironically, if you talk too much, you will have a lot of trouble expressing yourself. If you listen well, you can express yourself better because you can tailor your response to what the person has already said. Additionally, if you listen to others intently, they will likely return the favor. If you do not listen to them and just try to talk over them, then they will likely do the same to you.
Or you recommend I should smile and nod without voicing disagreement/discontent?
Some questions are too "taboo" to ask.Scott wrote:Ask Questions - Plato's dialogues show how Socrates used questions to have productive philosophical conversations with others. The Socratic Method can come in great use in discussions of philosophy. Asking questions will help you better understand the other speakers, and it will cause them to express their contentions more clearly to you. That will greatly reduce misunderstandings. Additionally, asking questions makes you seem genuinely interested in the other person's ideas. Making disagreeing statements, instead of asking questions, may make the other person feel attacked and may make you seem preachy, both of which will make the discussion less productive.
Should I ask such questions or censor myself?
Agreed.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. Using concise, simple, and specific phrasing will usually help you express yourself clearly. Rambling, over-elaboration and the unnecessary use of "big words" will make you less clear. Additionally, you can express yourself most clearly when you match the formality of your speech or writing to the formality of the situation. In other words, use formal phrasing in a formal situation and more informal phrasing in a more informal setting.
If a conversation becomes "combative" then when is it 'okay' or "morally acceptable" to tell the other person what you really think about him/her, even if you hurt feelings?Scott wrote:Speak Nicely and Politely - If the conversation turns into a contest, or if any of the speakers feel angry or offended, it will greatly reduce the philosophical productivity of the discussion. A discussion about philosophy can quickly degenerate into a name-calling, insult-throwing fight. The other person will listen to you more if they feel more comfortable and respected. Do not just speak as nicely as you must in order to keep the conversation philosophical; instead, speak as nicely, respectfully, and politely as you can. Avoid insults, name-calling, or offensiveness as much as possible. Also, especially if you disagree, try thanking the other person for discussing the topic with you.
Is it ever 'okay' to hurt other people's feelings?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 6:23 am
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 830
- Joined: October 28th, 2007, 1:45 pm
- Location: California
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023