When you don't feel like being respectful anymore, that's when maybe you should end your dialogue which has stopped being one.

It's what I do. Once a dialogue stops being a dialogue, it's no longer "productive".

I read some comments to the effect that heated conflict gets the creative juices flowing. I think this is only true in the case where there is an established underlying camaraderie, that won't be damaged by such conflict, an underlying respect and agreement. — Pantagruel

I agree with this. I also think that those comments in favour of heated conflict were based on a basic misunderstanding. Even if there are some people who enjoy that kind of thing, it doesn’t mean it always results in a productive debate, one that is worth anyone else’s while to join or to follow. In fact, abusiveness produces, at the very best, low quality debates that revolve around who misquoted whom, who took the other out of context, and so on.

So as I see it, it’s not just a matter of hurt feelings and thin skins, as those commentators seemed to imply. It’s about how enjoyable, productive, substantive, and welcoming a debate is.

Context is important here. There is a significant difference between a barroom and a classroom, but even so... incivility in a barroom might earn a punch in the nose. Even between friends, incivility might not be tolerated. There is certainly a place for raucous slash and chop discussion (usually lubricated with beer), as long as everyone accepts the terms of discussion.

Otherwise, keep it civil.

It’s about how enjoyable, productive, substantive, and welcoming a debate is. — Jamal

@BC
Too, I think the nature of the discussion is significant. Discussions can be more polemical, if people are on different sides of historically exclusive positions (e.g. idealism versus materialism); or they can be more collaborative, when trying to reason innovatively within a domain of basic consensus. I think the trick is to maintain an awareness of the collaborative nature of discussion, even while it is polemical.

I also think that those comments in favour of heated conflict were based on a basic misunderstanding. Even if there are some people who enjoy that kind of thing, it doesn’t mean it always results in a productive debate, one that is worth anyone else’s while to join or to follow. In fact, abusiveness produces, at the very best, low quality debates that revolve around who misquoted whom, who took the other out of context, and so on. — Jamal

Of course hostility doesnt always produce a productive debate. If we are dealing with an opponent who is being ‘uncivil’ we have more than one option. Certainly we can simply end the discussion. This is a good idea if our opponent’s hostility triggers our own anger and defensiveness, leading us to assume they are incapable or unwilling to engage in logical argument.
Another option depends on our ability to resist having our buttons pushed by others’ attacks and instead recognizing their hostility as exasperation over a response they disagree with but don’t know how to effectively unpack. My last exchange with Bartricks is a case in point. I responded to his OP, my response frustrated and threatened him because he disagreed with it but couldnt break it down to points he could focus on calmly.
His obnoxious comment to my response ‘got my competitive juices flowing, not because he angered me, but because I saw beyond his anger to his exasperation, and saw that as a challenge to myself to formulate my arguments fully enough to give him an entry point into my reasoning. And that’s exactly what happened. He essentially acknowledged a point I was making, albeit reluctantly and in a backhanded way.

In sum, hostility on the part of someone I’m engaged in debate with get me motivated not because I want to ratchet up the ill feelings , but on the contrary, because it tells me there’s a large gap between their thinking and mine , and it’s a valuable challenge to me figure out how I might close this gap by building a bridge between their perspective and mine in a way that won’t trigger them. Usually when we focus on the other’s ‘incivility’ we have already decided that such a task is impossible , that our opponent is irrational, uninterested in learning from us , closed-minded. And we’re usually wrong.

I’ve debated with a majority of those who have been banned from this site, been insulted by most of them , and also achieved productive dialogue with each of them.

So as I see it, it’s not just a matter of hurt feelings and thin skins, as those commentators seemed to imply. It’s about how enjoyable, productive, substantive, and welcoming a debate is. — Jamal

I don’t think one can separate the hurt feelings from the enjoyability and productiveness of a debate. I achieved enjoyable and productive debates with people that others here failed to do. My point is that this is not entirely a function of the incivility behavior of one participant in a debate. We have more power than we realize to produce something productive from it.

do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel

Yes, but I also think this is a thing of the past, a mark of the social dinosaur. People outrude me all the time, so I always lose and they win.

In sum, hostility on the part of someone I’m engaged in debate with get me motivated not because I want to ratchet up the ill feelings , but on the contrary, because it tells me there’s a large gap between their thinking and mine , and it’s a valuable challenge to me figure out how I might close this gap by building a bridge between their perspective and mine. Usually when we focus on the other’s ‘incivility’ we have already decided that such a task is impossible , that our opponent is irrational, uninterested in learning from us , closed-minded. And we’re usually wrong. — Joshs

Then why do you consistently ignore my replies to you?

Then why do you consistently ignore my replies to you? — baker

Didn’t realize I was doing that. Usually when I don’t respond it’s because I dont have anything useful to add.

We have more power than we realize to produce something productive from it. — Joshs

It's a laudable attitude to see it as a challenge. As long as it doesn't stay one-sided forever.

Yes, but I also think this is a thing of the past, a mark of the social dinosaur. People outrude me all the time, so I always lose and they win — baker

Really! I guess I am kind of a dinosaur at 58. What decade are you, if you don't mind me asking?

do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel

In theory and intent, I agree. Alas, sometimes my temper gets away with me. I've gotten better over my years here. I give the forum credit for that.

Civility is highly overrated. It is good for smoothing social transactions with strangers but in the context of a discussion or debate its more often used to dodge accountability for ignorant or weak arguments. It is also used as a means of high roading or virtue signalling ones way out of a losing argument.
Also, sometimes the truth is not civil. Operating under a pretence of civility when this is the case is not only dishonest and coddling, it is generally unproductive. Too much sugar coating and the fact you needed medicine is too easily forgotten. :wink:

I'm a bit younger than you, but I've been outdated for a long time already. I grew up in the country, and there we're about 20 years behind the mainstream to begin with.

In theory and intent, I agree. Alas, sometimes my temper gets away with me. I've gotten better over my years here. I give the forum credit for that. — T Clark

:up:
Agreed. Habits have to be exercised to be created. Growth is difficult.

Operating under a pretence of civility when this is the case is not only dishonest and coddling, it is generally unproductive — DingoJones

Maybe. But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. I interpret this as saying, that is difficult.

Based on some recent intrigues, I'd like to pose the question, do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel

Yes. I very much prefer polite, abuse free discourse. I have rarely seen disrespect serve the interests of an argument. Sound reasoning is unaided by calling someone a moron or grotesquely impugning motivations. That said, people come from different worldviews, cultures and sensitivities, what may be intended as a conversation in good faith may be perceived as unreasonable. Sometimes people become enraged by phrases or approaches which for them hold special resonance (in a bad way). And sometimes we are rude without intending to be. This can then provoke reactions and you know the rest...

But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. — Pantagruel

But some people defend stances which are criminal, and as such if one remained talking to those people in a civil manner, one would in fact be supporting those criminal stances or displaying immorality.
This is not to suggest that one should be uncivil sometimes; it's that some conversations should be terminated.

Yes. I very much prefer polite, abuse free discourse. I have rarely seen disrespect serve the interests of an argument. Sound reasoning is unaided by calling someone a moron or grotesquely impugning motivations. That said, people come from different worldviews, cultures and sensitivities, what may be intended as a conversation in good faith may be perceived as unreasonable. Sometimes people become enraged by phrases or approaches which for them hold special resonance (in a bad way). And sometimes we are rude without intending to be. This can then provoke reactions and you know the rest... — Tom Storm

It all goes back to what one hopes to accomplish through talking.
I think talking is mostly overrated anyway.

It all goes back to what one hopes to accomplish through talking.
I think talking is mostly overrated anyway. — baker

Agree.

That said, people come from different worldviews, cultures and sensitivities, what may be intended as a conversation in good faith may be perceived as unreasonable. Sometimes people become enraged by phrases or approaches which for them hold special resonance (in a bad way). And sometimes we are rude without intending to be. This can then provoke reactions and you know the rest... — Tom Storm

Hmm. Yes, cultural relativism and all that, good point. And this unfortunately means that we could legitimately be immune to a reasonable argument if its basis is too far outside our familiar sphere. I just read something in Proust that speaks to this on the limits of the 'competence of genius':

One may have had genius and yet not have believed in the future of railways or of flight, or, although a brilliant psychologist, in the infidelity of a mistress or a friend whose treachery persons far less gifted would have foreseen. (Within a Budding Grove)

In this respect, our most cherished ideas are certainly like friends, to whose shortcomings we might be blissfully immune. Ideas and theories always exist in larger contexts, and it isn't always about what we perceive as internal consistency, is it?

It's always a challenge to transcend personal relativism.

But some people defend stances which are criminal — baker

Yes, that would be de facto "uncivil" (certainly by Rawls' standard, which is public reasonableness).

Maybe. But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. I interpret this as saying, that is difficult. — Pantagruel

Sure, it is possible to have genuine civility. I remarked on how it is more often not the case in the context of debate or argument. The pressure of debate brings out the weasel in people, and civility is often the means by which they avoid accountability.

The pressure of debate brings out the weasel in people, and civility is often the means by which they avoid accountability. — DingoJones

There can be no accountability among equals to begin with.

Too much sugar coating and the fact you needed medicine is too easily forgotten. — DingoJones

All those self-appointed doctors!

ideas and theories always exist in larger contexts, and it isn't always about what we perceive as internal consistency, is it? — Pantagruel

Agree. I think for many people philosophy has a broad aim of providing coherence and integration, but as humans we are not overly coherent and integrated. I personally don't find the metaphor of 'ultimate truth' or the Kantian style 'reality as it is itself' useful and am not really looking for that angle. Which means there will be gaps between myself and those who do think in terms of ultimate truth. Whether those gaps lead to disputation and acrimony remains to be seen. This is where civility is most tested it seems to me (and in politics, but isn't that often a variation of ultimate reality - a contest of metanarratives?)

Yes, the Lakoff I'm just reading has quite a bit to say about Kant's absolutism of morality and reason (specifically, that's it's just a by-product of fundamental cognitive metaphors therefore not truly absolute). However, just because an ideal may not exist in the sense of "pure reason" to me doesn't mean - or imply - that it cannot exist (and be approached) in terms of a goal.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. But some goals like this are ultra hard to achieve and I opt out on the grounds of insufficient information, time, opportunity, capability. As Harry Callahan said - 'A man's got to know his limitations.'

:up:

goal, model, standard...it could be realized empirically in a number of ways....

My personal experience has been only learning the virtues of the dispassionate after losing my cool over and over again. The lessons keep coming.

It may be germane to point out how the matter of contentious arguments were the bread and butter of Classical Greek culture. One of the central themes in the Republic is how the rude and abusive challenge by Thrasymachus was transformed into the well-reasoned debate of later chapters. A number of Plato's dialogues were brawls peppered liberally with personal insult. That element was recognized as part of the "dialectic" even when criticized as inferior.

Another influence for me on the subject is Nietzsche saying that one has to be careful about who one bothers to oppose because the effort is also a recognition of their importance. That suggests that there is a balancing point where expressions of contempt cancel the object of defeating an idea.

Otherwise, all contentions between ideas are a spasm of opportunistic sophistry.