There's a lot riding on some of the discussions on the forum. For me, it's about self-definition. How I see myself. My ideas are important to me. Laying them out here is a way of testing them and myself. That can lead to competition. If someone makes me see something differently, I may have to change my self-image. That can lead to games. Also, those of us on the forum are generally pretty good at thinking. It's our hobby. We do it recreationally. Like tennis or golf. We like to compete at what we're good at.

I'd like to think that, as I've gained more confidence in my ideas and how to express them, I've become less competitive and more collegial and therefore, more civil.

On the other hand, as I've said before, I think the level of competition on the forum has decreased significantly over the past few months and the level of civility has increased.

There's a lot riding on some of the discussions on the forum. For me, it's about self-definition. How I see myself. My ideas are important to me...I may have to change my self-image. — T Clark

How sad.
It's just an internet forum (i.e., an anonymous group of people playing all sorts of different games for all sorts of different reasons). Occassionally, someone writes something worth reading.

Both sides could still be acting in good faith, but the structure of exchange they've fallen into is not what they think it is. — Srap Tasmaner

Putting aside the merely rhetorical tactics that folk use, I'd say there is a largely unrecognised issue of logical structure in play.

And that is that the laws of thought that work for arguing over particulars are different from the dialectical laws for arguing over the metaphysically general.

So the laws of thought require an answer to be right or wrong in the fashion of the law of the excluded middle. Everyone understands that there has to be a winner and a loser, a truth and a falsity, when it comes to a question over some particular individual fact. The LEM says your choices are limited to either/or.

But arriving at generality - which is the usual goal of any metaphysically-tinged debate - should logically result in the and/also outcome that is a dichotomy, some mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive pair of correct ideas. The dialectical result is two formally complementary truths. When folk end up arguing diametrically opposed positions, that is a good result for the debate - if they can realise that by going at each other in Socratic fashion, they have laid bare the division that can then generally ground all consequent acts of individuation or particularisation.

We are familiar with all the traditional metaphysical dichotomies that dialectical philosophy almost immediately threw up, and which became the basis of modern rational thought.

Particular~general, for a start. Or flux~stasis, discrete~continuous, part~whole, one~many, matter~form, chance~necessity, atom~void, local~global, action~direction, potential~actual, mind~body, signal~noise, freedom~constraint ... the list really does go on and on.

So chances are, where people feel adamant that they are right about something in a general fashion, it is because they have seized on one pole of a polarity.

Is reality fundamentally something continuous or is it fundamentally discrete? A really convincing case can be made for either of those positions. And the LEM seems to rule already that only one particular answer could be right - the other is automatically false. But if the concepts of discrete and continuous are perfectly matched in this complementary fashion, then now we have the happy outcome that is the deeply useful fact of a metaphysical dichotomy.

Somehow both these answers must be true as the ultimate bounds on existence. They become the thesis and antithesis out of which the synthesis - in terms of a world of individuated particulars - can then appear.

So the LEM is a logical structure that fosters the expectation that any decent argument is going to reduce all possibilities to some single correct answer. It is either/or.

But larger than the LEM is the dialectic. That is how you arrive at the space of possibilities, the space of individuated particulars, to which the LEM could apply. And so dialectical reasoning is expansionary. It points you from the symmetry breaking that is a dichotomy towards the holism of a triadic or hierarchical generality. The resolution that is a synthesis. You have two bounding extremes and now all the possible balances that lie in-between.

So people get passionate because in any decent philosophical argument, the most completely opposed alternatives are the ones that are going to feel the rightest. Violent disagreement is the way to get progress - so long as there is then the follow-up of the synthesis that unites those opposites in a generally sensible way.

How sad. — Galuchat

Just a quick clarification. Seems like you're being a dick, but I wouldn't want to accuse you of being a dick if you aren't being a dick.

Glad you mentioned the LEM, because after posting I thought of a similar issue.

Many decades ago Michael Dummett noticed an uncanny similarity between lots of standard philosophical debates. He recognized the same moves as in the realism/anti-realism debate and suggested that many people were in effect having that same debate but within a restricted domain. Point being that the realists will assume that the LEM applies and the (local) anti-realists have often stumbled, because they don't recognize that they need to deny this. They feel boxed into true-or-false for propositions they really ought to say 'neither' for if they're to be consistent.

Note that the realists were just doing their thing -- applying the LEM is just part of their story, but it also functioned as an I WIN card without them intending or recognizing it.

I think philosophers (and maybe even ordinary folks) tend to be more sophisticated about that now than they were fifty years ago, but I think there's evidence around us of similar issues.

Things I may not have articulated clearly in the OP, if anyone cares:

• Playing a "winning game" (or a "losing game") means employing a strategy guaranteed to win (or to lose), no matter what your opponent does, or perhaps only if your opponent continues as they have.
  
  
• I'm trying to tease out a difference between conflict "on the merits" and conflict on another level I'm not sure how to describe -- argumentation? dialogue? exchange? Philosophers will tend, I think, to assume or pretend there is no such difference, but I think there might be. Maybe not.

I'm not sure exactly what Roth meant. Part of it might have been the "proving a negative" thing. Part of it was probably also that defending someone accused of anti-Semitism would open you to at least a suspicion of being likewise anti-Semitic, and that makes your defense suspect and self-serving.

My best guess is that Roth saw something that's more sinister, in a way. Mounting any defense is agreeing to debate the claim that Philip Roth is, among other things, anti-Semitic, to look at evidence for and against the proposition, etc., and that's agreeing to treat the claim as something that might be true, might be false. But no! There's no reason to allow this claim into the category of "might be true". So that's one sense in which defending would be losing.

First thought: the difference between interacting like a lawyer or like a judge, between pressing points and wanting to better understand the apparent truth.

his parents' friends were giving them a hard time about what a bad boy he was, and he told them this: "Say, 'You don't know how bad he is! The things we've had to put up with -- it was a nightmare! Now the whole world knows, thank God.' But don't defend me. That's a losing game." — Srap Tasmaner

Roth knows how to play this game. And it's not what you think.

?

Pete Unger makes a similar point, although not with your terminology. Philosophical arguments are held to win if and only if no counter-example can be thought of in any possible world, but this is an impossible standard to meet because the field of "all that can happen in any possible world" is too large, possibly infinitely large. Thus philosophical debates become pointlessly amaranthine. I'm not sure if this counts as the proponent of a philosophical proposition playing a losing game, or their opponent playing a winning one. I'm inclined to see it as neither, but that third option you offer which is that neither realises the nature of the game.

Even if, as in academic philosophy, the debate is constrained by some accepted axioms, say two naturalist philosophers will debate about the role of reductionism, or two Kantians might argue about the extent to which capital punishment is implied by the CI, if possible world counter-examples are genuinely infinite, the tight bounding of the field will make no difference, infinity divided by anything is still infinity.

I think it comes down to the muddle people have about the purpose of philosophy. People treat it simultaneously as a series of problems with more or less 'right' solutions, and as an exercise in rhetoric where the careful and deliberate obfuscation of terms can be used to make your solution seem right no matter what.

As I've mentioned before (ad nauseum?), the only way out of this is to ditch the idea of philosophy as a method of seeking 'truth', and come to terms with it's role as therapy. Instead of opponents in a debate, you have complimentary options, rational people will choose one of the options which makes most sense (in the classic use of the term), irrational people might choose some crazy world-view which is completely incoherent, but as Mark Twain (probably) said, one can hardly expect to use rational argument to disabuse someone of a notion that was never rationally arrived at in the first place.

There's a lot riding on some of the discussions on the forum. For me, it's about self-definition. How I see myself. My ideas are important to me...I may have to change my self-image.

On the other hand, as I've said before, I think the level of competition on the forum has decreased significantly over the past few months and the level of civility has increased.

Just a quick clarification. Seems like you're being a dick, but I wouldn't want to accuse you of being a dick if you aren't being a dick. — T Clark

How civil of you (that's what anonymity does). Would your reply have been different if a face-to-face encounter between us was a real possibility?

To clarify: I would maintain in a face-to-face encounter between us that it is sad that your self-definition, -image, -esteem is dependent upon the posts in an internet forum.

Hopefully I have helped you to test your idea(s) and your self (your stated purpose for participating in this forum). But in case I haven't, we are done playing this game.

I think one of the best things one learns while doing philosophy is exactly how to identify ‘losing games’, and with it, how to remove oneself from them. It’s not even entirely unfair to say that the ability to evaluate the game itself - it is worth playing? Are these moves - the available ones - the ones we want to make? - is the sine qua non of philosophical aptitude. The game as a whole and not the moves within it. It’s often too easy to get caught up in the trap of ‘but do you agree or not? It is right or wrong?’, and not attend to whether or not the very terms of the argument, the very way in which an argument is formulated, is itself felicitous.

I think nine times of out ten, sides of a debate are not ‘wrong’; it’s much worse: they are ‘not even wrong’; the game itself is broken from the very beginning: the set of possible moves needs to itself be rejigged. Worthiness, not error; value, not fault: that's the criteria of games.

I think nine times of out ten, sides of a debate are not ‘wrong’; it’s much worse: they are ‘not even wrong’; the game itself is broken from the very beginning: the set of possible moves needs to itself be rejigged. — StreetlightX

I think you are wrong. Can you give an example of this? Presumably you mean more than just misunderstandings caused by different implicit assumptions concepts and definitions - that's just the normal stuff of debate that often takes a while to explicate.

I hope you are wrong, because this kind of attitude drives me up the wall. Apo does it. Mars Man did it. (There are others I disagreed with like Death Monkey and Reincarnated who didn't do it.) "I won't engage with what you are trying to say until you adopt my vocabulary, concepts, rules, definitions. Of course, when you these things you will naturally see the light anyway and our disagreement will dissolve."

It makes debate about power rather than ideas and truth. It's who can seize the rule book first. "No! It's my debate, not yours. We do it MY way!"

It makes debate about power rather than ideas and truth — bert1

Who said it's about debate to begin with? Debate has never been situated on the side of truth: the very etymology of de-bate stems from contest and agonism - in other words, power: (dis-battuere 'reversal+fight/beat/batter'). No debate-team ever consoled themselves after losing that they were 'right'. Debate is alien to truth and always has been. The whole point is that one explores ideas and only ideas: that one is not shackled to - a losing game. That's intellectual debilitation through and through.

How civil of you (that's what anonymity does). Would your reply have been different if a face-to-face encounter between us was a real possibility? — Galuchat

I'm not that civil. Are you big enough to beat me up?

To clarify: I would maintain in a face-to-face encounter between us that it is sad that your self-definition, -image, -esteem is dependent upon the posts in an internet forum. — Galuchat

I knew what you meant. So, you seriously think that me calling you a name is worse than you condescendingly insulting me because I take the forum seriously? Civility? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

Hopefully I have helped you to test your idea(s) and your self (your stated purpose for participating in this forum). But in case I haven't, we are done playing this game. — Galuchat

Actually, yes, it has helped.

As I've mentioned before (ad nauseum?), the only way out of this is to ditch the idea of philosophy as a method of seeking 'truth', and come to terms with it's role as therapy. Instead of opponents in a debate, you have complimentary options, rational people will choose one of the options which makes most sense (in the classic use of the term), irrational people might choose some crazy world-view which is completely incoherent, but as Mark Twain (probably) said, one can hardly expect to use rational argument to disabuse someone of a notion that was never rationally arrived at in the first place. — Pseudonym

I've grown to understand that pragmatism is what your reffering to when it comes down to assessing the utility of various beliefs. No?

I've grown to understand that pragmatism is what your reffering to when it comes down to assessing the utility of various beliefs. No? — Posty McPostface

Yes, Pragmatism is a pretty wide term (especially if you include neopragmatism) but basically it's the epistemological approach I subscribe to.

How sad.
It's just an internet forum (i.e., an anonymous group of people playing all sorts of different games for all sorts of different reasons). Occassionally, someone writes something worth reading. — Galuchat

Hiya Galuchat!
It really isn't "sad" at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I believe if you are truly here, practicing the discipline of philosophy, there is an endless amount we can learn about ourselves and those around us.
To me what is "sad" is that you have been a member here at TPF for a year and yet only find someone "occasionally writes something worth reading". My feeling is that in life, you get out what you put in and TPF is a slice of life, a glimpse of another's perspective and that to me is valuable. But what is priceless is the genuineness that each member offers, whether I agree with them or not. Oh and one more thing and I will be on my way, overtime you might find out that those you disagree with today, you agree with tomorrow.
Happy Trails

I believe if you are truly here, practicing the discipline of philosophy, there is an endless amount we can learn about ourselves and those around us. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Fact is: nobody is truly (or genuinely) here. Hello! It's an internet forum; where usually the only thing you learn from other members is:
1) Who they want you to think they are, and
2) What kind of games they like to play under a cloak of anonymity.

For example, you seem to be very much into playing a Mommy game with me now, a hostess game with newcomers at other times, and a dispenser of awards for politically correct posts at other times.

Hey! Whatever floats your boat, but don't kid yourself into thinking any of that has anything to do with practising the discipline of philosophy.

As for your reply: I found it amusing, but definitely not worth reading.
Take a Hike.

Well, he just lost the game...

Interesting demonstration, eh? Next...

As for your reply: I found it amusing, but definitely not worth reading.
Take a Hike. — Galuchat

I don't get it. You clearly know that what you write will hurt people. You clearly do it for just that purpose. What's in it for you? What do you get out of it?

My hunch had been that the logical character of philosophical debate would provide a sort of natural camouflage for moves that are successful or unsuccessful on another plane, so to speak, the rules of conversation rather than logic per se, and that this camouflage might be so good that people on both sides might think they're winning or losing for logical reasons when it's really something a little different. (A really good read here is Sellars' article about Strawson, "On Presupposing".)

(Complication for me is that I'd like to understand what connects the two domains, and I suspect the laws of argument emerge from the laws of arguing -- but that's not what I'm after here.)

Imagine my surprise when some contributors don't even bother with a pretense of logical argument, but go straight for the psychodrama.

Imagine my surprise when some contributors don't even bother with a pretense of logical argument, but go straight for the psychodrama. — Srap Tasmaner

If you want to talk about deception at the level of language games, that could be interesting and instructive.

But foundational to that is deception at the level of narrative control. And that is the purpose of social media: narrative control, not philosophy.

Fact is: nobody is truly (or genuinely) here. Hello! It's an internet forum; where usually the only thing you learn from other members is:
1) Who they want you to think they are, and
2) What kind of games they like to play under a cloak of anonymity. — Galuchat

Dude, I really feel sorry for you if you don't genuinely know anyone on the Internet. However that doesn't change the genuine relationships that I have between myself and others on the Internet. Cloaks of anonymity are often removed with honesty and being genuine.

For example, you seem to be very much into playing a Mommy game with me now, a hostess game with newcomers at other times, and a dispenser of awards for politically correct posts at other times. — Galuchat

Well I be damned! You just listed off the skills I genuinely use in my life outside of the Internet! Those skills are called "caring" about people other than ourselves. I have a tendency to do that for other people regardless if I have something to gain from them or not. Unconditional love maybe? Genuine kindness? Absolutely.

Whatever floats your boat, but don't kid yourself into thinking any of that has anything to do with practising the discipline of philosophy. — Galuchat

Hey thanks for issuing me permission of free will! One thing I learned is to look at who is making the judgement of me before putting an ounce of weight behind it.

As for your reply: I found it amusing, but definitely not worth reading.
Take a Hike. — Galuchat

Then don't bother reading me. We have an ignore function but it takes free will to utilize. :up:

Fact is: nobody is truly (or genuinely) here. Hello! It's an internet forum; where usually the only thing you learn from other members is:
1) Who they want you to think they are, and
2) What kind of games they like to play under a cloak of anonymity. — Galuchat

And this is different from "real life" (or whatever you want to call it)... how?

This is such a last-century attitude towards communication on the Internet! For some reason it is taken as something less than real, something that cannot be taken seriously on pain of being mercilessly ridiculed by some dick. I could never really understand this. If you cannot see my face, or if you don't know my legal name, or if the interaction is mediated via digital rather than analog channels, then it is all so different? Why?

Or is your position that unless an interaction can result in physical violence, it cannot be taken seriously?

It is indeed like a game, and, behind the scenes, there are rules. One of them apparent in this discussion seems to be that you may speak the truth, but only if filtered through the social expectation of politeness. Otherwise you lose. Politeness is dictatorial: you can't say this or that! If you break the rules, then you're a naughty boy. Naughty boys cause a stir, and sometimes they do this simply by speaking unfiltered truth.

I knew what you meant. So, you seriously think that me calling you a name is worse than you condescendingly insulting me because I take the forum seriously? Civility? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does. — T Clark

It was unquestionably less civil to call someone a dick than it was for someone to claim your position was sad. The former was bullying, the latter perhaps insensitive. It did seem though from his response that he was unoffended by your middle school taunt, yet by your response it was clear you were incapable of handling criticism maturely.

Politeness is dictatorial: you can't say this or that! If you break the rules, then you're a naughty boy. Naughty boys cause a stir, and sometimes they do this simply by speaking unfiltered truth. — Sapientia

If your objective is to communicate that the emporer wears no clothes, you will be insulting possibly, but your comments will be ignored if you make them so vulgarly that no one one takes them seriously. The opposite can be true too, where someone recites bullshit so eloquently that it's taken seriously when it shouldn't be.

And this is different from "real life" (or whatever you want to call it)... how?

This is such a last-century attitude towards communication on the Internet! For some reason it is taken as something less than real, something that cannot be taken seriously on pain of being mercilessly ridiculed by some dick. I could never really understand this. If you cannot see my face, or if you don't know my legal name, or if the interaction is mediated via digital rather than analog channels, then it is all so different? Why? — SophistiCat

Good questions, and relevant to the OP, because they address communication in the context of an internet forum.

The biggest difference between digital communication using internet media and analog (e.g., face-to-face) communication is that approximately 65% of all communication is nonverbal, as opposed to verbal (Birdwhistell, 1974). Of the remaining 35%, much is simultaneous nonverbal and verbal communication with nonverbal and verbal elements reinforcing, complementing, emphasising, contradicting, substituting, and regulating each other (Ekman, 1965).

Unless all communication on an internet forum is conducted using video, a significant amount of information is not transmitted. The result is virtual relationships, not personal relationships.

The Japanese are apparently susceptible to replacing personal relationships with virtual relationships. For example, committing suicide when un-friended, or un-liked. Or withdrawing from participation and suffering a loss of self-esteem, or nervous breakdown, when they discover they hold a minority opinion. The enforcement of conformity is a significant social force which can be enacted in top-down and/or bottom-up fashion.

Apparently, young Japanese males prefer to cultivate virtual relationships with "female" animations, rather than personal relationships with female human beings. This is setting their society up for collapse due to declining marriage and birth rates. Perhaps my information is dated. If so, how has Japan rectified this problem?

Also, Emmanuel Levinas refers to the importance of face-to-face encounters in establishing moral responsibility.