A refuge of civility

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
Post Reply
User avatar
Chasw
Posts: 153
Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
Location: Seattle, USA
Contact:

A refuge of civility

Post by Chasw »

I enjoy participating in philosophical discussions here and at another, similar forum associated with a magazine about philosophy, far away from here in cyberspace. I can't help but notice a stark difference between the consistent practice of civility we enjoy here, vs the vulgar and unseemly attacks on one another sometimes displayed at that other forum. Just about any philosophical discussion can become contentious, given enough time, but somehow selected members of that crowd all too frequently resort to angry insults, without any censure from moderators.

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
The central question of human existence is not why we are here, but rather why we behave the way we do - http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Human00
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: March 17th, 2017, 4:47 am

Re: A refuge of civility

Post by Human00 »

I made an account here because I wanted to DISCUSS different views and opinions. If you're not open to at least hearing what other people are thinking then why join in a discussion where you know your particular views might not be met.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: A refuge of civility

Post by -1- »

I think the key to the success of this site to keep debates civil, is successful and efficient monitoring and censuring of the site. Monitoring for ad hominem and other attacks, and mercilessly deleting posts or members who violate it. I support this practice fully.

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.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: A refuge of civility

Post by LuckyR »

I understand -1-'s post, though I appreciate why things happen the way they do, so it doesn't bother me.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Chasw
Posts: 153
Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
Location: Seattle, USA
Contact:

Re: A refuge of civility

Post by Chasw »

-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
The central question of human existence is not why we are here, but rather why we behave the way we do - http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: A refuge of civility

Post by -1- »

CashW, if I accept your criticism, then I ask you: how do we decide who won an argument and why?

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.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Dissimulation
Posts: 37
Joined: March 23rd, 2017, 12:38 pm

Re: A refuge of civility

Post by Dissimulation »

I have mixed feelings regarding the topics I have contributed in. I recognize many of the points made, however it is frustrating to genuinely want to attempt a philosophical discussion and to be met with irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims and rife with fallacy's and self- contradiction. Im not concerned with asserting that my claims are infallible, rather I desire to find error in my thought, wisdom in the reasoning of others with the intention to better understand the topic discussed. However at the very least its an exercise of my own reasoning and the possibility of better understanding is always present. I agree with -1- in regards to the complete absence or ignorance of the basic principles of philosophical discussion I.e critical reasoning. I am not suggesting a strict adherence to formal argumentation, just logic & reasoning. Quite irritated at the inappropriate use of influential philosophers and theories misrepresented, as if the individual employing them has not attempted to read or understand the argument. Philosophical discussion is dependent on utilizing critical reasoning and available relevant empirical data (when applicable) to verify the value, coherence and probability of the truth or untruth of a statement. In short, nothing will be gained in discussion of opinions, particularly in a forum of philosophical discussion. Until then I suppose I will remain as Mr.Strawman and endure the arrows of irrationality though I am starting to lose a bit of my straw.
Dissimulation
Posts: 37
Joined: March 23rd, 2017, 12:38 pm

Re: A refuge of civility

Post by Dissimulation »

The particularities (content) of an argument are not limited but rather strengthened by the philosophical method which can be expressed dialectically in very general terms as it consisting of (foundationally, structurally) : A good argument (valid, rationally plausible) with the conclusion that X is a reason to believe Y. Since Parmenides recognized that critical reasoning allowed possessors of consciousness to overcome the limitations of the senses (qualitative/ phenomenal sense experience). With rare exception (possibly stoics and eastern tradition though the argument could be made) philosophical inquiry and published arguments employ (fundamentally) critical reasoning. Science itself presupposes an empiricalist metaphysical belief of reality and employs the same methodology to observational physical states (spacial presence, velocity, relations etc measurable) to determine the validity of a particular that possesses physical attributes (intrinsically, causal relativity etc) . Philosophy is a methodology for determining truth, uncovering untruth or arguing for the most plausible truth of all that an individual experiences, will experience or posits. Philosophy or philosophical inquiry presupposes all areas of intellectual/conceptual/ empirical discipline. Generally I am indifferent to its recognition or implementation in the day to day affairs of others, however in a forum developed for philosophical inquirey/ argumentation critical reasoning ought to be the standard. At the very least it validates belief in the most efficient way available to us and allows for a shared syntactical or dialectical language, for real discussion. I have yet to encounter or recognize a superior methodology or any other way to determine the truth or untruth of a thing, concept, choice, object etc that possess a more efficient criteria for determining a truth or untruth. Bit of a rant but anything less belongs in the realm of theology or fantasy. To be clear , I am not suggesting any particularities or ontology to philosophy or questioning the merit of any individual belief but rather presenting a very basic foundation or principle that is expressed in the philosophical tradition and still utilized in Academia and those with expertise in various interests in modern philosophical discussion.

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophers' Lounge”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021