I don't see how that follows. Either the philosopher is deciding at random which ideas to give a fair shake, or he is deciding based on some factor. If the latter, its not prima facie impossible that such a factor might, by chance, never arise. — Isaac

Of course, but then the criterion "Giving all ideas a fair consideration, at one's discretion" becomes moot, and there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no difference anymore between a philosopher and an ideologue.

Either way, is there some minimum number of ideas then one must give a fair shake in order to count as a philosopher? If I give one idea fair shake in my teens, am I then set for life to be a dogmatic idealities and still be called a philosopher?

*hrmph*
"No true philosopher would refuse to give all ideas a fair shake."

Terms that denote racial, national, cultural, religious, or political identity are hard to pin down, they have multilayered meanings. The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply to them (just like it doesn't apply to the story from which it originates, which was a case of an equivocation -- 'person living in Scotland' vs. 'a good person').

It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like.

However, I can see Pfhorrest frustration maintaining respect for people — schopenhauer1

One doesn't actually need respect for people in such discussions. It's not like one intends to take them out for dinner afterwards or start a company together.

I find visciousness and vitriol a reason to stop all debate and is exactly the reason why discussions break down and become emotional fiat. I dont go into a discussion to stoke emnity like some troll. There should be some element of respect to keep the conversation from devolving into a brawl. I dont buy the idea that all arguments must get personal and that using condescension and ad personum attacks count as anything resembling phosophical discourse. If you resort to that, then its poisoning the well right off the bat. Who wants that except a bunch of asshole types that get pleasure at complete conflict mode.

I find visciousness and vitriol a reason to stop all debate and is exactly the reason why discussions break down and become emotional fiat. I dont go into a discussion to stoke emnity like some troll. There should be some element of respect to keep the conversation from devolving into a brawl. I dont buy the idea that all arguments must get persinal and that using condescension and ad personum attacks count as anything resembling phosophical discourse. If you resort to that, then its poisoning the well right off the bat. Who wants that except a bunch of asshole types that get pleasure at complete conflict mode. — schopenhauer1

Not respecting a person doesn't automatically translate into being vicious toward them or that the conversation will devolve into a brawl. Why should it?

It's perfectly possible to be polite to someone whom one doesn't respect.

It's perfectly possible to be polite to someone whom one doesn't respect. — baker

If you want to make a distinction between having respect and acting respectfully, I am totally fine with that. The outcome for debating purposes is the same. No reason to shit in the arena where you are debating. Just make your argument and counterargument, no reason for the other rhetorical antagonisms other than as a rhetorical tactic or because people can't control themselves when dealing with people they disagree with. To actually want to be an troll seems pretty screwed up to me, if you want to have a fair and clean debate of actual content.

I'd just like to be clear that nowhere am I advocating disrespecting anybody. Even group 5, I think, still see themselves as good people holding their views for good reasons; they're just ones to whom communicating the problems with those reasons and the consequent problems with their behavior is nigh-impossible. The whole point of the rest of the spectrum is to distinguish other degrees of disagreement as even less bad than that: that it's not just "us" and an unreachable "them", but there's shades in between, who deserve to be treated differently than the "unreachable them", the latter of whom I don't even think are in principle unreachable or some kind of inherently evil, but just... really, really hard to get through to.

Yeah, easily.

consuming all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on - makes businesses profitable which leads to more jobs and more prosperity, and anyway, all that unnecessary shit is stuff we want, that's why we buy it so it would be against values of autonomy to discourage people from doing so.

taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.

not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.

imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.

ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.

and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances. — Isaac

None of the spurious arguments you presented are based on pragmatics, common decency or common sense, if your aim is social harmony. It's not worth the effort of addressing them in detail, because they are so obviously bullshit arguments, based on speculation about what might happen rather than on humanistic principles in the here and now. Such arguments are flawed simply because no one knows the future, and any arguments based on what purportedly will happen are therefore driven by ideology not by principle.

So if you think (as I do) that there ought to be social harmony and fairness, and that a variety of things are necessary toward that end, and you are very sure about all that, then that corpus of thoughts you hold are a set of strong opinions, an ideology. People like us who agree about those things see each other as group 1. — Pfhorrest

We certainly may agree on some points in this, but this is where we disagree. To my way of thinking an ideology is an overarching formulation of how everything should be. At the extremities people will kill and terrorize to advance their ideologies. Ideologies include both political and religious dogmas. You can't argue successfully with people like that; they are beyond reason.

What I am advocating is a strong set of humanistic principles which are held for their own sakes because they are based on the ideas of freedom and equality, and they are promoted not for any consequentialist reasons other than that they are necessary for social harmony.

Any strong consequentialist motivations are based on mere speculation because no one knows the future, or is able to understand the human situation adequately due to its complexity.

Of course, but then the criterion "Giving all ideas a fair consideration, at one's discretion" becomes moot, and there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no difference anymore between a philosopher and an ideologue. — baker

So for all practical purposes you couldn't actually tell the difference, in any given discussion because it's extremely unlikely you're going to know you interlocutor's past sufficiently to know if they have ever given any ideas a fair shake - ie you'll never know if they're dismissing your idea out of hand because they decided to do so on that occasion (philosopher) or because they always do so (idealogue).

It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like. — baker

OK - have at it then.

To my way of thinking an ideology is an overarching formulation of how everything should be. — Janus

You mean like...

social harmony — Janus

principles which are held for their own sakes — Janus

...rather than, for example...

because they are based on the ideas of freedom and equality — Janus

promoted not for any consequentialist reasons — Janus

...other than the consequentialist reason that they...

are necessary for social harmony — Janus

Any strong consequentialist motivations are based on mere speculation because no one knows the future, or is able to understand the human situation adequately due to its complexity. — Janus

So how then do you determine which ideas are necessary for social harmony if you cannot make a claim that X will promote or disrupt social harmony because of complexity of the human situation?

There should be some element of respect to keep the conversation from devolving into a brawl. I dont buy the idea that all arguments must get personal and that using condescension and ad personum attacks count as anything resembling phosophical discourse. If you resort to that, then its poisoning the well right off the bat. Who wants that except a bunch of asshole types that get pleasure at complete conflict mode. — schopenhauer1

So if someone were to come on and politely, patiently explain why Jews were the inferior race and need to be exterminated for the benefit of the master race, and I told them to "fuck off", I'd be the one in the wrong there? We should, rather, have a long in-depth and polite conversation exploring our difference of opinion about the extermination of an entire race.

Should I interfere at the building of the gas chambers? Or is it too soon whilst the debate is still to be settled?

We certainly may agree on some points in this, but this is where we disagree — Janus

We're only disagreeing about terminology, and since this is about the terminology I used in my OP, you are not free to disagree about what I meant by that terminology. You can disagree about whether that is the best terminology for the things that I meant, but not that I meant what I meant by it. You can use that terminology to mean different things than I did, but if you do then you're talking about something different than I was. In which case anything you say is non-sequitur as a response to anything I said, and you haven't commented on the actual topic at all, but rather on what you thought the topic was due to a miscommunication, that I have since cleared up (unless you still actually don't understand the different way I'm using those words, rather than just disagreeing with the appropriateness of the use of them in that way).

I'm talking about social harmony on the local scale. Anything that privileges some over others, any impositions on individual autonomy and freedom to do whatever does not impinge on the freedom of others, is obviously antisocial and not supportive of social harmony. It's not rocket science its; common sense.

I don't understand why you would want to lose the valid distinction between ideologies and the common sense ethical principles to be applied in everyday life. I say ideally any large scale contraventions of those common sense principles should be resisted by everyone with any sense. Are there other terms whose meanings you think we are disagreeing about?

I don't understand why you would want to lose the valid distinction between ideologies and the common sense ethical principles to be applied in everyday life. — Janus

Because what you call "common sense" someone else may call "crazy nonsense", and vice versa. It sounds like you and I broadly agree on what is common sense, and of course I think that we're actually right about that and that people who wildly disagree with it are seriously wrong and, as you say, should be resisted. I'm not saying that every point of view is equally (in)correct; I'm not espousing relativism. I'm just saying that every point of view is a point of view.

The distinction you're making between "common sense" and "ideologies" sounds like a distinction between "facts" and "beliefs". Beliefs are things that you think are facts. There are some actual facts that are not dependent on them being believed, but the people who think that those actual facts are the facts thereby believe those facts. Other people believe differently. Saying it's a belief doesn't say whether it's a correct or incorrect belief, even though some beliefs may be correct and others incorrect. Beliefs aren't non-facts by definition. Facts are the things it is correct to believe, but those beliefs in the facts are still beliefs.

What word would you prefer to use instead of "ideology" to mean one's "big picture thoughts about how things ought to be", regardless of whether those thoughts are the correct ones ("common sense" as you'd call it) or not? I.e. what's the umbrella term encompassing "common sense" and "ideologies" in your taxonomy? What are those both types of?

I'm talking about social harmony on the local scale. Anything that privileges some over others, any impositions on individual autonomy and freedom to do whatever does not impinge on the freedom of others, is obviously antisocial and not supportive of social harmony. — Janus

I'm aware of that. What I'm struggling to see is how you can pretend there's not still massive disagreements about which policies best meet these criteria in the real world.

The idea of...

individual autonomy and freedom to do whatever does not impinge on the freedom of others — Janus

...is one with which I doubt anyone would disagree, ideologues included, but surely you can see it intrinsically sets up a balance (how much must my actions impinge on the freedom of others in order to outweigh my autonomy?). It is that balance over which most such disagreements are fought.

'Freedom' is not something which can be easily measured, it is something which different people measure differently, as is privilege. There are an insignificantly small group who would actually disagree with such nebulous notions as freedom, autonomy and equality. The disputes are over what those terms actually mean.

I'd just like to be clear that nowhere am I advocating disrespecting anybody. Even group 5, I think, still see themselves as good people holding their views for good reasons; they're just ones to whom communicating the problems with those reasons and the consequent problems with their behavior is nigh-impossible. The whole point of the rest of the spectrum is to distinguish other degrees of disagreement as even less bad than that: that it's not just "us" and an unreachable "them", but there's shades in between, who deserve to be treated differently than the "unreachable them", the latter of whom I don't even think are in principle unreachable or some kind of inherently evil, but just... really, really hard to get through to. — Pfhorrest

Here's the thing: What do you want to accomplish with debate or discussion?

So for all practical purposes you couldn't actually tell the difference, in any given discussion because it's extremely unlikely you're going to know you interlocutor's past sufficiently to know if they have ever given any ideas a fair shake - ie you'll never know if they're dismissing your idea out of hand because they decided to do so on that occasion (philosopher) or because they always do so (idealogue). — Isaac

Of course. Like I said earlier -- It's not like one intends to take one's interlocutor's from this forum out for dinner afterwards or start a company together.
Again, it comes down to what one wishes to accomplish with debate or discussion.

Frankly, I think much of what we do here is a kind of philotainment. For socializing and for fun, some people go out drinking and talking nonsense, some play golf, some remodel their house, and some engage in philosophy-ish discussions on the internetz ...

It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like.
— baker
OK - have at it then.

Perhaps I'l start a thread on this some day.

So if someone were to come on and politely, patiently explain why Jews were the inferior race and need to be exterminated for the benefit of the master race, and I told them to "fuck off", I'd be the one in the wrong there? We should, rather, have a long in-depth and polite conversation exploring our difference of opinion about the extermination of an entire race. — Isaac

This is one of those situations where the impotence of internet discussion forums becomes painfully evident.

Should I interfere at the building of the gas chambers? Or is it too soon whilst the debate is still to be settled?

Would you actually go out to the building site and interfere?

Here's the thing: What do you want to accomplish with debate or discussion? — baker

To learn, and to teach.

Those on the farther parts of the spectrum are those who show little sign of having anything to learn from and little hope of being teachable. Those on the closer parts are those with whom one can most effectively have a mutually educational conversation.

To learn, and to teach. — Pfhorrest

But are others here for those same purposes?

Do you believe there are people here who come here to be taught by you?

Would you actually go out to the building site and interfere? — baker

I was talking about the point at which engagement stops, rather than the nature of the action to take. It goes back to what I said right at the beginning, most of these ideas are not new, and those that are become old very quickly. Most of what people consider 'not engaging with the ideas' is more properly "I've hard these ideas before, they were daft then and they're not any less daft in their new clothes".

To learn, and to teach. — Pfhorrest

Good principles.

Unfortunately those from whom you could learn are those to whom you think you should teach, and those whom you could teach think the same about you.

I was talking about the point at which engagement stops, rather than the nature of the action to take. It goes back to what I said right at the beginning, most of these ideas are not new, and those that are become old very quickly. Most of what people consider 'not engaging with the ideas' is more properly "I've hard these ideas before, they were daft then and they're not any less daft in their new clothes". — Isaac

I suppose it comes down to how much education a person has and how much reading and thinking they've done so far, so considerable differences among individuals are to be expected because of that.

But a person's life experiences can also radically change their outlook on life and change the way they view ideas they had dismissed long ago.
For example, I have a situation with several new neighbors for about a year now that has made me completely rethink moral realism.
To say nothing of how the election of Trump made me rethink things.

So this is what? An exception to the rule? Something you somehow know to be right in ways others can't access? — Isaac

Like I've been saying all along, but your not payng attention, you can only claim what us right or wrong for yourself. Are you saying it is right for you to infringe on other peoples rights? :roll:

Indeed. Nor did I ever, anywhere, say that it was. — Isaac

Then we have been agreeing all this time that Pfhorrest's assumption that what they consider right is right for all, is actually wrong? It was you asserting that Pfhorrest is right in their assumption that they know what is right for others. It was me telling you that assuming that you know what is right for others is the wrong way to go about engaging others about what they consider right or wrong.

You seem to be incapable of maintaining a consistent thought in your head.

Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean that we can't come to an understanding of what is right or wrong for an individual and why. Going into the discussion already assuming that you know what is right for them isn't going to get you anywhere in understanding that.

I suppose it comes down to how much education a person has and how much reading and thinking they've done so far, so considerable differences among individuals are to be expected because of that. — baker

True, although I think a topic like philosophy is perhaps a little unusual in this regard. Unless the subject being discussed is what some philosopher said (or was likely to have meant - exegesis), then there is no body of knowledge that's relevant to the question. Particularly true in ethics.

So, often an idea might be expressed even more doggedly by someone invested in that framing than it might be by a layman, but the idea itself does not gain anything by repetition, whether by expert or layman.

Like I've been saying all along, but your not payng attention, you can only claim what us right or wrong for yourself. Are you saying it is right for you to infringe on other peoples rights? — Harry Hindu

Yeah, pig-headedly refusing to address an issue doesn't make the issue go away. We're talking about moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are almost exclusively social which means that any answer cannot be individually tailored. There can only be a single right answer and it must apply to everyone sharing the common interest that isvthe subject of the dilemma.

Pfhorrest's assumption that what they consider right is right for all, is actually wrong? — Harry Hindu

No.

That everyone has a different idea about what is the 'right' solution to any given moral dilemma, and that we cannot adjudicate between those opinions is moral relativism. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of to whom one's 'right' solution applies.

So, often an idea might be expressed even more doggedly by someone invested in that framing than it might be by a layman, but the idea itself does not gain anything by repetition, whether by expert or layman. — Isaac

I think most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them.

These conversations aren't about adding to the body of work of philosophy as such. Or, at most, adding only in small ways or indirectly. These posts aren't like contributing articles to a philosophy journal.

I think most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them. — baker

You may read a different range of posts to me. The overwhelming majority of threads I read are of the form...

"it seems to me that X is the case".

"X cannot be the case because it seems to me that Y is the case and that Y contradicts X",

"but Y cannot be the case, because, as you have just admitted, it contradicts X and yet it seems to me that X is the case"...

...and so on.

I think most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them.
— baker

You may read a different range of posts to me. The overwhelming majority of threads I read are of the form...

"it seems to me that X is the case".

"X cannot be the case because it seems to me that Y is the case and that Y contradicts X",

"but Y cannot be the case, because, as you have just admitted, it contradicts X and yet it seems to me that X is the case"...

...and so on. — Isaac

The point was that something's seeming to you to be the case is not contradictory to that thing's seeming to someone else not to be. And yet the bulk of disagreement seems to be on that very issue.

These conversations aren't about adding to the body of work of philosophy as such. Or, at most, adding only in small ways or indirectly. These posts aren't like contributing articles to a philosophy journal. — baker

In fact, this is quite rightfully called a "forum", reminiscing of its ancient function:

In addition to its standard function as a marketplace, a forum was a gathering place of great social significance, and often the scene of diverse activities, including political discussions and debates, rendezvous, meetings, et cetera. In that case it supplemented the function of a conciliabulum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(Roman)