A fork from the bannings thread.

"To make any advance in philosophical understanding requires subjecting one's thoughts to the harshest possible criticism. I like sushi is providing this sort of value to you for free; there exists no onus to bundle that value with other kinds such as encouragement or accolades.
— Boethius "

I agree in theory, but in the real world the "harshest possible criticism" typically triggers ego storms which derail the investigation. And then there's this...

If you present an effective challenge to some viewpoint in "harshest possible criticism" mode you are giving the target an escape hatch. When the challenge becomes too much for the target to bear they can change the subject to you, derail the thread with all kinds of emotionalisms, get you banned and so on. If present your challenge in a scrupulously polite manner, this avenue of escape is closed off.

So if you want to be kind, act like a jerk. :-) — Nuke

Fortunately, this (banal) mode of critique (even hundreds of years ago) has already been dispensed with:

Yet it is easier to put up with an ignorant man who declares that theory is unnecessary and dispensable in his supposed practice than with a would-be expert who concedes it and its value in schools (perhaps only to exercise the mind) but at the same time maintains that matters are quite different in practice; that when one goes from school into the world one becomes aware that one has been pursuing empty ideals and philosophic dreams; in short, that what sounds good in theory has no validity for practice. (This is often expressed as, this or that proposition does indeed hold in thesi, but not in hypothesi.) Now if an empirical engineer tried to disparage general mechanics, or an artilleryman the mathematical doctrine of ballistics, by saying that whereas the theory of it is nicely thought out it is not valid in practice since, when it comes to application, experience yields quite different results than theory, one would merely laugh at him (for, if the theory of friction were added to the first and the theory of the resistance of air to the second, hence if only still more theory were added, these would accord very well with experience).

[...]

This maxim, which has become very common in our times, so full of talk and empty of deeds, does the greatest harm when it has to do with something moral (duties of virtue or duties of right). For here it is a matter of the canon of reason (in the practical), where the worth of practice rests entirely on its conformity with the theory underlying it, and all is lost if the empirical and hence contingent conditions of carrying out the law are made conditions of the law itself, so that a practice calculated with reference to an outcome probable in accordance with previous experience is given authority to control a self-sufficient theory.

[...]

I divide this treatise according to the three different standpoints from which the worthy gentielman' who so boldly disparages theories and systems usually appraises his objects, and so in his three capacities i) as A private individual who is still a man of affairs, 2) as a statesman, 3) as a man of the world (or citizen of the world generally). These three persons are at one in attacking the academic, who works on theory on behalf of them all and for their benefit; since they fancy that they understand matters better than he, they seek to banish him to his school (ilia se iaäet in aula!),' as a scholar who, spoiled for practice, only stands in the way of their experienced wisdom. — Kant

If reading this essay is not sufficient; you're mistake is to assume I am trying, much more have a duty, on this forum to try to persuade rather than argue.

I do not say "To make any advance in philosophical understanding requires subjecting one's thoughts to the harshest possible criticism" principally for others, but rather principally for myself. I come to the forum as a part of my objective to find the harshest possible criticism.

Because I believe in treating others as I would have them treat me, I try to provide this value of the harshest possible criticism to others as I wish they provide to me. Otherwise, if the forum was simply an exchange of platitudes, an echo-chamber of the choir, or 99% of every discussion about the feelings of participants in the discussion rather than the topic at hand, the forum would have no value.

The forum has value because the harshest possible criticism people here can craft is both allowed and encouraged. Now, why not even harsher such as insults? Because insults are not harsh criticism, but the flailing about of a weak mind that no one with an ounce of wisdom needs strain their own faculties to meet. For instance, if someone were to call me a jerk, I am simply flattered that they have nothing better to say. Insults are low quality criticism, that again if low quality was tolerated and inundated the forum, it the forum would have no value and I would go elsewhere for what I seek.

Now, if hearing all this if you still ask "but really, what about their feelings? still? they have feelings we shouldn't hurt, they may not like it", it does not matter if my opponents here are convinced by me or not; they participate here willingly and I have no thought for their comfort. If it's uncomfortable for them they can go elsewhere.

In opposing view points with the full stakes of what those view points imply (defending what one really believe to be right and attacking what one really believes to be wrong), the best contrast of those views is the result. Of the participants, it is their choice to benefit or not, if they do not choose to benefit from the exposure of their arguments to those of a different colour, and see for themselves if they captured the right image of reality, focusing on the right aspects in the right ratio, then that is their loss. However, their self sacrifice of their own benefit we can be comforted by the fact other participants on the forum benefit and likewise knowledge in a general sense.

However, rest assured that when I go about my business and my goal is to persuade (investors, team members, the bank, the bureaucrats, clients, the general public etc.) I have a different approach. If you were worried for my own personal life of criticizing everyone harshly all the time, you need not; it is only someone looking and inviting scrutiny, such as developing a business plan or posting on this forum, that I would think to criticize harshly, for they seek such a benefit. True, sometimes people are not really looking for what they say they are looking for, and would rather me pat them on the head and say "this business plan is great, put all you resources into it" or then "your argument is sound, I see where you are coming from, good work, keep at it" even if I don't believe that to be the case, but I can not distinguish the genuine from the disingenuous, and so in treating everyone as unable to manage their own egos I do disservice to those that can.

I've placed this in the political section, because it is a question of political discourse.

True, when the objective of the day is to persuade and not get to the fundamental truth, then harshly criticizing everyone with the slightest difference is not a good strategy. However, to get to that point of persuading presumes one already knows the truth that one feels justified in persuading others about and doe not, at least in the moment, require a critical debate. But, how does one get to such a belief in the first place? Clearly, if one thinks one has the truth, presumably the critical debate was required at some point by someone; and if not, it would certainly be trivial to check it to be the case. A healthy society, therefore, requires two realms of discourse, one indeed of persuasion to coordinate the like, though not perfectly, minded to carry out real actions they are more than less satisfied and oppose the actions which they are more than less dissatisfied (and vice-versa for their opponents), but also another realm of real debate from which we hope the truth to emerge. Those that fear such a framework of real criticism, of each side needing to "show what they got", in an equal setting of words against words, absent the power dynamic of the wagging finger of the parent, the school master, the boss, the pundit or politician, are those that fear the truth.

The language of "common now, don't really get into things, it makes people uncomfortable, watch your tone! philosophers! put on your kitten gloves when dealing with the self-labeled lions of intellectual prowess who are just trying to comfort the haves and make a buck," in the context of intellectual debate, of opposing philosophical world views, is the language of privilege; for when one's vision of society is already, more than less, applied in the real world one need not a proper analysis of things, one can simply enjoy the fruits of victory; a proper analysis can bring only either the white flag of negotiation, of capitulation of the rotten bulwarks of power; or then, violence in the streets and a need to do the dirty work of maintaining those bulwarks ... if one ever really was wrong about the justification of things as they already are, better not to think about it in the first place.

For, if you re-read your criticism carefully, your concern is for the privileged, those that have enough to have egos to worry about, and your concern is how to persuade them to be and to do less rather than more evil.

Yes, the truth is mostly irrelevant to such nudging, and will only risk angering them and they will storm off and avoid any further engagement.

However, my concern is not for the haves, but the havenots, and they have not enough to have egos to worry about, and their only weapon is the truth, for once in the mind it cannot be easily be taken away as can a home and a slice of dignity, and they do not have the time for a few points scattered in the long-winded self-congratulating bellows of the intellectual class; for, the truth is free for every mind, and with more truth than their opponents it is possible to win the day, even with little to nothing. In writing what I really think is true, perhaps indeed I do disservice to those who have egos, but there are others who have no such barriers to critical thinking, those who know what reality is like because they are on the receiving end of it, and who quite clearly see a better analysis is a tool for changing it. A handful of privileged intellectuals in each generation take on the task to oppose evil with words so that the havenots can make opposition with actions, rather than simply maintaining and enjoying their privilege; for a revolution of language and argument precedes every revolution of political relations, and this is the only relevance of philosophy beyond entertaining parlor talk games; I rather try to take on that task than live in fear of the lightening strikes from high society and be deafened into silence from the thundering ruffling of feathers.