I may get thrown out of some forums but today I am thinking I am going to be more consistent in demanding good manners and I will post about virtues more often because I believe we can have better lives when understand the virtues and the importance of good manners. — Athena

And I believe you're right. But the question is, how did you come across to believe that the above sentiments, beliefs, and philosophies, are in fact right? Was it from embracing them, wholeheartedly, as a second truth? Or perhaps, did those who gave you the life and education that allowed you to not only be born but receive such information, possibly have been a bit less than faithful to the so-called truths and virtues you preach?

We need a culture that brings out the best in people and I think this might being by creating social pressure that encourages everyone to be a better person. — Athena

Your idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently.

I've always found your posts to be a model of courtesy and have no idea why you think you might be 'thrown out' for saying so. I completely agree with the importance of manners (and wish my grandsons had more of them ;-) ) I think the more delicate point is, how to disagree with others whilst remaining civil. That is especially important in philosophy and in navigating online discussions. My experience is, I have plenty of disagreements, some of them quite heated, but I try and refrain from inflammatory language and bomb-throwing. But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.)

Anyway - overall in total agreement, and the model of 'paideia' is certainly one that we should all aspire to.

I don’t have a deep view on this, but I generally avoid engaging with people I assess as hostile or aggressively obtuse. I suspect many who come across as belligerent aren’t necessarily self-aware, they likely see themselves as committed to truth or other ideals that, to them, justify what others experience as harshness or dogmatism. I avoid using abuse and inflammatory language but I've noticed that even measured engagement can be misinterpreted or misdiagnosed as sophistry or insincerity.

One thing to bear in mind is that philosophical disputes may involve disagreements about what the participants think is real - and that can’t help but generate heat at times. (‘How on earth can he honestly believe that?!?’) One habit I’ve adopted is to say that views I think are wrong are incorrect - rather than some more inflammatory term, which I was often tempted to use in the past. But disagreements are disagreements, and there’s no getting around that.

But disagreements are disagreements, and there’s no getting around that. — Wayfarer

I have no issue with disagreements. I disagree with myself.

...views I think are wrong are incorrect - rather than some more inflammatory term, which I was often tempted to use in the past. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that's the preferred approach. I always assume people are doing the best they can, even the rude ones. But we don’t have to engage with everyone.

I like this AI explanation: — Athena

Isn't this kind of thing against the forum rules?

Begging your pardon, of course.

I generally avoid engaging with people I assess as hostile or aggressively obtuse. I suspect many who come across as belligerent aren’t necessarily self-aware, they likely see themselves as committed to truth or other ideals that, to them, justify what others experience as harshness or dogmatism. — Tom Storm

This is generally my practice too, both here and elsewhere.

I always assume people are doing the best they can, even the rude ones. — Tom Storm

You're more charitable than I. Looking at my own behavior, it's apparent that I am often not doing the best I can, so I tend to assume that's true for others as well.

The other thing that helps with civility, when disagreements occur, is an attitude of genuine curiosity. This puts the discussion into an entirely different dimension than "dueling refutations." But what is genuine curiosity? See under "humility" -- not one of the Greek virtues, but many today regard it as an improvement over megalopsyche.

Not long ago I happened to come across a very short clip where John Milbank was contrasting culture with manners. Being 44 seconds long, it's not particularly deep, but I think I get the basic idea from his other work, which is that a code (i.e., largely procedural) of civility, a step below legalization, actually supplants notions of virtue. Or more accurately perhaps, the elevation of procedural rights grounded in the autonomous agent over any notion of the human good means that rules as a sort of social lubricant to avoid friction between individuals replaces notions of virtue as the harmonious internal and external ordering of the person, within themselves, but also as they are ordered to the world and their society.

Manners and virtue obviously aren't in conflict per se. But manners might become seen as "fake," "inauthentic," and arbitrary when detached from virtue? Isn't that sort of the idea with the "phonies" in The Catcher in the Rye or the ticky tacky people of Malvina Reynolds' Little Boxes, or the Beat writers, etc.?

Well, at least one random person on Reddit agrees with this judgement. I quickly found:

I think that some people are using it as a way to act special and above people for no reason and to radiate the holier than thou energy to other people. They have no reason to use it other than the fact to act better than people and to get more attention Than they deserve. No one is gonna care about what side you put your forks or spoon on just bc it’s “bad manners” or “rude” they just use those words to describe how they don’t like it.

To hide behind their uncomfortabilities in life. Nothing is really rude anymore bc ppl use it as a way to hide behind things they don’t like. If I don’t wave at the person who let me cross how is that rude?? It’s petty/little shit like that that people think is rude and pisses me off, no one cares anymore what you do.

lol, they certainly aren't afraid of putting it in stark terms.

Patrick Deneen argues that the liberation from custom favors the "elite." I am not so sure about this. I think he may be conflating "most well off or flourishing," with "has the most wealth and power," here in a pernicious way. But it's a relevant and interesting analysis:

Custom may have once served a purpose, Mill acknowledges—in an earlier age, when “men of strong bodies or minds” might flout “the social principle,” it was necessary for “law and discipline, like the Popes struggling against the Emperors, [to] assert a power over the whole man, claiming to control all his life in order to control his character.”9 But custom had come to dominate too extensively; and that “which threatens human nature is not the excess, but the deficiency, of personal impulses and preferences.”10 The unleashing of spontaneous, creative, unpredictable, unconventional, often offensive forms of individuality was Mill’s goal. Extraordinary individuals—the most educated, the most creative, the most adventurous, even the most powerful—freed from the rule of custom, might transform society.

“Persons of genius,” Mill acknowledges, “are always likely to be a small minority”; yet such people, who are “more individual than any other people,” less capable of “fitting themselves, without hurtful compression, into any of the small number of moulds which society provides,” require “an atmosphere of freedom.”11 Society must be remade for the benefit of this small, but in Mill’s view vital, number. A society based on custom constrained individuality, and those who craved most to be liberated from its shackles were not “ordinary” people but people who thrived on breaking out of the customs that otherwise governed society. Mill called for a society premised around “experiments in living”: society as test tube for the sake of geniuses who are “more individual.”

We live today in the world Mill proposed. Everywhere, at every moment, we are to engage in experiments in living. Custom has been routed: much of what today passes for culture—with or without the adjective “popular”—consists of mocking sarcasm and irony. Late night television is the special sanctuary of this liturgy. Society has been transformed along Millian lines in which especially those regarded as judgmental are to be special objects of scorn, in the name of nonjudgmentalism. Mill understood better than contemporary Millians that this would require the “best” to dominate the “ordinary.” The rejection of custom demanded that society’s most “advanced” elements have greater political representation. For Mill, this would be achieved through an unequal distribution of voting rights...

Society today has been organized around the Millian principle that “everything is allowed,” at least so long as it does not result in measurable (mainly physical) harm. It is a society organized for the benefit of the strong, as Mill recognized. By contrast, a Burkean society is organized for the benefit of the ordinary—the majority who benefit from societal norms that the strong and the ordinary alike are expected to follow. A society can be shaped for the benefit of most people by emphasizing mainly informal norms and customs that secure the path to flourishing for most human beings; or it can be shaped for the benefit of the extraordinary and powerful by liberating all from the constraint of custom.

Aristotle also has a relevant section in Book IX of the Ethics where he talks about how forms of government affect friendship. So, in the corrupted forms of government, you see different corrosive effects on true friendship. Tyranny leads to friendships based on fear and flattery. Oligarchy leads to friendships based on jealousy and advantage. Democracy (by which means a sort of mob rule) tends towards a sort of false equality and refusal to recognize distinctions in virtue. By contrast, the constitutional polity sets and equal ground for friendship, good will (the ground of manners), and concord (joint striving towards a common good). This rings true for some first hand accounts of Soviet life I've read at least.

An interesting idea here is that true friendship, the willing of the good for the other for their own sake, requires virtue as a prerequisite, since, without virtue, we cannot even consistently will the good for ourselves. I think "well-rounded" are harmonious are the right ideas here.

But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to.

You made the point better than I could. There is the thorny issue here of identifying virtue. Classically conceived, the virtues should be as beneficial for the poor man as the rich woman, etc. Manners, in being structured by the current social order (which may or may not be virtuous), can be more or less aligned to virtue.

Actually, in theory the virtues should be most beneficial for those beset by bad fortune. Good fortune can lift anyone up, to at least some degree. Whereas the idea is that virtue allows people to flourish even under dire situations. The idea being that it is better, at least everything else equal, to be temperate instead of gluttonous, prudent instead of rash, courageous instead of cowardly, or, in terms of "physical virtue," strong instead of weak, skilled instead of unskilled, etc.

But, we might wonder how well this idea "cashes out" in the modern context.

When we are offended, what is the best way to handle this — Athena

Thank you for making the effort to try to humanize this group of logicians. I would suggest not looking at it as handling your being offended, but that someone else has done something wrong, say, impugned your character, said something vulgar, etc., and that the appropriate response to each wrong may be different but would probably be specific based on the type of act, possibly also informed by the situation (demonstrated by recent suggested responses to newly-recognized ills). Deciding “what” your response will be based solely on your level of offense may leave you with just self-righteousness and being indignant instead of realizing that what is actually appropriate is an accusation, or reprimand, or refusal of that treatment, or being an ally, or calling HR. Just coming in hot also doesn’t really leave room for a mistake on your part, or the possible mitigating circumstances, excuses, acts of reconciliation, etc. that are baked into calling someone out.

I also believe there are appropriate virtues for philosophers: patience, open-mindedness, being more curious than rushing to judgment, being rigorous but fair, not generalizing, allow for disagreement but don’t find it first before acknowledging common ground, don’t take your annoyance with an issue out on anyone who seems to bring up something similar, don’t attack the weakest part of an argument, try to understand their terms and what interest they have in their point… pretty sure we’ve got these written down somewhere.

It depends: sometimes manners are markers of class, and used to identify bounders (social climbers) by exposing their ignorance of the social niceties. The imposition of manners can become cultural bullying. I hope none of you know the Bishop of Norwich?

https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/the-etiquette-of-port/

You gave me a lot to think about. I migrated from this forum to the history forum because I wanted to discuss things from a historical point of view with people who knew the history. I gained a lot, but it deteriorated and became so unpleasant I am thankful for this refuge. Rarely have I had a problem with the people who post here, because the people here are thinkers, they are not king of the hill, I have to take you down, players. If one does not want to get knocked around like a football player, perhaps that person shouldn't play football.

Hum, interesting :nerd: . Repeatedly, an individual has made an important historical discovery and been crushed by those in seats of power, preventing an advancement in history for many years. I don't think the same thing happens in philosophy. We get that my point of view may not be the same as yours. We may argue our point of view without attacking others for their point of view. The last straw in the History forum was someone refusing to accept information about what the Twelve Tablets have to do with Roman education because those Tablets are not with us today. All we have are written records about them. The guy had zero interest in exploring what we can know from the records. He just wanted to prove me wrong based on the fact that we do not have the original Tablets. How stupid. What do these guys do? Look for posts they can argue against, even when they care nothing about the subject?

Is there a history of philosophers trying to prove each other wrong?

Your idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently. — Outlander

Okay in the weeks I have been gone, I was working on a thread about the history of education, and in ancient times, education was mostly about behavior. The best way to present this is to present that history. There is nothing I would enjoy doing more than discuss the history of education, but I am cowering in the corner, begging not to be hit. I want to be more cautious this time. The discussion would be good only if that is what others also want. It just is not fun if the only thing others want to do is prove me or others wrong.

Isn't this kind of thing against the forum rules?

Begging your pardon, of course. — bongo fury

I do not understand your post. Isn't what against the forum rules?

But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.) — Wayfarer

YES! Our times are a little tenser than I would like. And as I sit here with books about the history of education, and a memory of my grandmother and her generation, I am thinking we might learn something from the past. We don't have to reinvent this wheel, but we need to know the power of education and what war and technology have to do with changing education. It isn't just about me, but the whole nation. Possibly the whole world. Young men learning to make bombs may not be as important as learning about life and our cultural experience of ourselves.

I do not understand your post. Isn't what against the forum rules? — Athena

Using AI is either explicitly against the rules, or is simply frowned upon, for the same reasons as using a summary of a topic, such as Wikipedia. Original thought or primary texts are preferred (though this includes one philosopher reading another, like Heidegger on Nietzsche).

I also think @bongo fury was making a joke, in bringing you up short and then apologizing.

Edit: from the Guidelines:

“AI LLMs are not to be used to write posts either in full or in part (unless there is some obvious reason to do so, e.g. an LLM discussion thread where use is explicitly declared). Those suspected of breaking this rule will receive a warning and potentially a ban.

AI LLMs may be used to proofread pre-written posts, but if this results in you being suspected of using them to write posts, that is a risk you run. We recommend that you do not use them at all”

Is there a history of philosophers trying to prove each other wrong? — Athena

I think the entire history of philosophy is self-referential and defined against itself. Even someone seemingly unique like Descartes or Wittgenstein are working within and against an established framework. But I would specifically think of Kant and Hume, Marx and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, and Ayers and Austin (and Austin/Derrida) as examples of direct conflict.

And I think here even there is too much focus on finding something “wrong” and dismissing what someone says, instead of working harder to understand, treating it as if there might be more to it than immediately registered.

in demanding good manners — Athena

This seems problematic. Your concept of 'good manners' is probably not close to universal, so 'demanding' anything along those lines is probably not going to help anyone. That's not to say I have a problem with your conception of 'good manners' though. Just pointing out that if someone disagrees that your demands are reasonable, that's up to them and not you and your demands to respond to.

I have found you rather curt and unimpressive as a polite interlocutor at times. This may be an example of why this is the case. I just don't consider that a lack of 'good manners'. We simply have different views and perhaps see each other in slightly-less-than-ideal lights for various reasons.

Where this gets interesting is when someone is being any number of things which are defined as impolite. I'm thinking here of things like trolling, obtuseness, personal attacks in a context that doesn't call for it, needlessly long-winded bollocks with reference to the Co-operative Principle of conversation (Grice), lying or other forms of deceit for instance.

Are they bad manners, bad nurturing, differences in culture or ignorance? It's quite hard to say in a lot of cases, when where those words are appropriate, because we only have our own view point to judge from.

When we are offended, what is the best way to handle this. — Athena

Unfortunately, I think the 'correct' way (and this in terms of living a happy life, avoiding conflict and all the rest) is to suck it up buttercup. Offense is taken, not given. If someone has said something that gives you a bad taste, either have a discussion and try to mitigate that taste, or walk away. I see no other options.

if you are harmed, that's a difference that matters. But being offended is not being harmed.

As long as honesty is not mistaken as bad manners I generally agree. Meaning, I would rather someone was honest and impolite than polite and trying too hard not to upset anyone.

The biggest problem of dialogue on these forums is the lack of ability to read emotions. I have managed to have a couple of video chats with people on this forum and it seems far easier to get the emotional intent across but not so easy to articulate in the moment.

Both have benefits. Hopefully one day I will be equally competent in both forms of communication.

I think the entire history of philosophy is self-referential and defined against itself. Even someone seemingly unique like Descartes or Wittgenstein are working within and against an established framework. But I would specifically think of Kant and Hume, Marx and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, and Ayers and Austin (and Austin/Derrida) as examples of direct conflict. — Antony Nickles

I am curious. Can you give me an example of one of these guys personally attacking another one?

I am really wanting to know about Descartes' notions about animals being mechanical and humans being beyond what is mechanical. That should be its own thread, and if you know about that, would you please start and thread and let me know.

As long as honesty is not mistaken as bad manners I generally agree. Meaning, I would rather someone was honest and impolite than polite and trying too hard not to upset anyone.

The biggest problem of dialogue on these forums is the lack of ability to read emotions. I have managed to have a couple of video chats with people on this forum and it seems far easier to get the emotional intent across but not so easy to articulate in the moment. — I like sushi

I may be wrong, but I want my last days to be pleasant. I want to discuss things that interest me with those who are informed and are also interested in the subject. I hate it when it appears someone knows nothing about a subject and appears to be uninterested in the subject, but for whatever reason, starts attacking the person who posted.

I like using :grin: the faces to communicate my feelings if I want to communicate a feeling. For sure, we interpret people differently when we think we are on friendly terms with someone. Good manners are important because they work with total strangers, who may not react well to kidding. Good manners are more formal, and that works well when we live in large populations.

Offense is taken, not given. — AmadeusD

This doesn't negate the fact that it's impolite to offer offense to others.

Offense is not given. So yes, it does as that does not obtain.

Offense can be given in many ways—through direct insults, indirect or implied slights, a condescending tone or delivery, hurtful humor, acts of disrespect, deliberate provocation, or insensitivity to someone’s circumstances. Claiming that offense is only taken is a weak attempt to dodge responsibility.

Well, it's not though. It is not possible for my actions to be offense, or to be offended. The offense exists solely, and inarguably, in your reaction. This is why transitive offense is a nonsense too, but that's another issue. I don't mean to be rude here - but this is an empirical matter. I cannot give offense. It is not open to me. I cannot package your emotions and send them over to you. Not possible.

Your point is taken, that we should be mindful how we interact with people, and I agree. But being impolite is not causing offense. it is being impolite. Being offended is its own genus and arena of thought, to my mind. I recently wrote a short essay on this topic with focus on slurs if you have any interest. It is incomplete as I was too ambitious - but i still got a 92 lol

I cannot package your emotions and send them over to you. — AmadeusD

Is this my thinking that you sent over to me?

I admit, I do not know what you are asking, really. But on its face, no. It isn't. It can't be.

If you packaged your thoughts and sent them to me did you send their meaning as well?

Being offended is its own genus and arena of thought, to my mind. I recently wrote a short essay on this topic with focus on slurs if you have any interest. It is incomplete as I was too ambitious - but i still got a 92 lol — AmadeusD

I'd be interested if it isn't too theoretical.

I'm curious about this idea, but I feel uneasy about it. While it seems true that how we react is our responsibility, it also seems clear that if someone is persistently described by others as less than human, inferior, dumb, or inadequate and is verbally abused, they will inevitably be affected. This is simply how people are. We respond to and internalize our interactions, conversations, and even name-calling, just as we respond positively to constructive feedback.

There may well be a case for teaching people to change their reactions, to emotionally detach from other's judgments and ill will, but that, to me, seems to require an enormous change management process. We appear to be dealing with an embedded intersubjective history of human interaction that may not simply be set aside with some rationalism.

I don't see how. That meaning lives within your head - this is the basis for misunderstanding, right? You react badly to something I thought was clear, and we have an impasse. There are two reasons I can reject the thesis, fairly readily:

People get offended where no offense was intended, or reasonably interpretable from the utterance; and
Intentions to cause offense routinely fail.

This shows a relationship between two things, which must, on both ends, co-operate, for someone to be reasonably offended. But it also shows that offense is not in the utterances.

I'd be interested if it isn't too theoretical. — Tom Storm

Ok, here you go. Nothing amazing but explains in more detail why I think the things I do, hereabouts mentioned.

On your further comments, I think you're describing (and it sounds like you see this too) what people do in the face of certain speech/activity. This doesn't tell me about what those aspects of speech are, or how they operate. Again, a failure to offend seems to put paid to the idea that you can offer one offense in an utterance. You can goad someone into becoming offended, sure, and as noted, we should avoid that. But this doesn't tell me anything about the utterance, I don't think. If you substitute offense for humour, it should be pretty clear that only internal expectations can create the result of an utterance.