A refuge of civility
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
A refuge of civility
I only assume the correspondents here are better educated, more refined, and therefore more civil and courteous to each other, regardless of how outrageous our individual arguments might be. Kudos to all of you - CW
- Human00
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: March 17th, 2017, 4:47 am
Re: A refuge of civility
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: A refuge of civility
My only beef is that some members here do not respond to reason and to logical arguments. They stick to their dogmatic beliefs and when convincing arguments are brought up against their beloved dogma, then they simply ignore that argument and continue as if their dogma has not been proven wrong.
This should not be tolerated on a philosophy forum. If a person's proposal or argument is defeated; or shown to be non-sensical; or shown to contradict the law of excluded middle; or is shown to use the wrong logic; then they should be forced to adhere to the result, and cease and desist from promoting their own agendas when those agendas are proven false, wrong, inappropriate or plain stupid.
I would also suggest that REASON be a deciding factor in the same way. Reason or reasonable ideas are not so easily identified, and unreasonable ideas are hard to prove unreasonable. So we need a judgement call here by the moderators at most times, and I suggest, and am willing to abide with, a process to only weed out those posts which are grossly unreasonable. For instance, as an instance, if someone proves that the universe is run on skate boards, and proves it with mathematical formulas, where THE MATH FORMULAS' VARIABLES ARE NOT EXPLAINED IN LONG HAND what they stand for.
As it stands, the current practice is to allow rampant idiotic ideas to run amok, and I resent that. I actually SUFFER when I painstakingly prove someone else wrong, in an air-tight, fool-proof, irrefusable way, and they simply ignore it and sing their false ideas on, and do not admit to defeat by argument. It takes too much out of me, and also when people, in reply to my posts, just talk about things as if they were pertinent and to defeat me and to tire me out, but their points are irrelevant and easily refuted -- yet I need to spend energy to reply to them. This sort of tactic comes from the smarter and more educated members, while the "ignoring the reason" comes form seemingly less educated, and intellectually less gifted members. And then there is the religious lot which I won't even engage, they are so frustrating to talk to.
Many people resent me on this site, and rightfully so, for I am liable to present a veritable challenge to their posts and ideas. I don't mind the resentment, but I mind being forced into explaining little details, and I mind being forced to not see the fruit of my arguments in debates.
Am I expecting too much from the moderators to keep the debates adhere to logic and reason? Yes, it seems they are already overworked. I, however, am so frustrated now on this site, despite its civility, that I can't any more meaningfully engage in debate, for I fear the futility of failure despite my best efforts to convince others to accept what I think.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7981
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: A refuge of civility
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Re: A refuge of civility
-1- wrote:I ...snip...
My only beef is that some members here do not respond to reason and to logical arguments. They stick to their dogmatic beliefs and when convincing arguments are brought up against their beloved dogma, then they simply ignore that argument and continue as if their dogma has not been proven wrong.
This should not be tolerated on a philosophy forum. If a person's proposal or argument is defeated; or shown to be non-sensical; or shown to contradict the law of excluded middle; or is shown to use the wrong logic; then they should be forced to adhere to the result, and cease and desist from promoting their own agendas when those agendas are proven false, wrong, inappropriate or plain stupid.
snip
Am I expecting too much from the moderators to keep the debates adhere to logic and reason? ...snip....
With all due respect, -1-. you are asking for way too much. Humans by nature are inconsistent in responding to reason. Philosophy in particular gives rise to dogmatic beliefs. Everybody, including those with open minds, have their own agendas. What you may think of as false, wrong, etc., others may think of as brilliant. Such is inherent in intellectual discourse.
Yes, you are asking too much from the moderators to police our posts for "correct" reasoning. It is more than enough that they squelch any and all abuses of common courtesy. You may write something I consider dead wrong on many counts, but that is no excuse for me to call your intelligence or sanity into question. Compared to other philosophy discussion groups, this one is an island of calmness and respect. That's all I ask for. - CW
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: A refuge of civility
Or do you suppose that arguments can't and ought not to be "won" or "lost", because everyone is entitled to their own opinions?
The way I see it, you start with facts (or assumptions, or a premise, or an assertion) and use logic to manipulate the initial assertions to arrive at conclusions.
If you both apply proper logic, then your conclusions must be the same. And that is what philosophical debate ought to be about. Weeding out the bad logic.
==========
For instance, if we argue about animal fossil remains. I say "they are 399,000 years old" and someone else says, "they can't be older than 6000 years, as the world was created by the
Christian god". Then I say "I believe no god created the world" and my debating parter says "I believe He did", then there is no point in continuing the argument because our facts or premisses are different.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: March 23rd, 2017, 12:38 pm
Re: A refuge of civility
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: March 23rd, 2017, 12:38 pm
Re: A refuge of civility
observational opinion - it appears many are unwilling to read/analyzes influential works written in the philosophical tradition because of the unique difficulty experienced in understanding and challenging the arguments without prior experience or study in the methodology. Secondly the understated difficulty in accepting and understanding that all held beliefs are susceptible to be proven and possibly proven false (harder yet when you determine yourself that what you have perceived as truth is incorrect). Lastly cultural values have shifted, philosophy is not directly pragmatic for cultural values (Title, prestige, wealth, the 'neurotic' ideal that value is determined by how others recognize you and subsequently the intentional projection of a particular version (illusion) of oneself).
Kierkegaard (Fear & Trembling) argues that the role of a teacher is to create a sufficient condition to allow the student to recognize him/herself as an individual (indeterminate /subjective) and all that it implies. Freud (civilization & its discontents) delves into the issues regarding being an individual and being an individual in contention with civilization. E.J. Lowe (introduction to the philosophy of mind) tackles a variety of issues and arguments of the various functions and drives of the individual in an accessible way, both empirical psychology and philosophical inquiry are utilized to offer some very compelling ideas. The theories presented, questions asked, and issues raised were helpful (unintentionally) in understanding the subjective & objective significance critical thought has and the merit of philosophical inquiry in ever changing external states of the world and my relation to it and the other.
2023/2024 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