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.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
*hrmph*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?
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.However, I can see Pfhorrest frustration maintaining respect for people — 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?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
It's perfectly possible to be polite to someone whom one doesn't respect. — baker
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
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
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
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
To my way of thinking an ideology is an overarching formulation of how everything should be. — Janus
social harmony — Janus
principles which are held for their own sakes — Janus
because they are based on the ideas of freedom and equality — Janus
promoted not for any consequentialist reasons — Janus
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
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
We certainly may agree on some points in this, but this is where we disagree — Janus
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
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
individual autonomy and freedom to do whatever does not impinge on the freedom of others — Janus
Here's the thing: What do you want to accomplish with debate or discussion?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
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.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
Perhaps I'l start a thread on this some day.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.
This is one of those situations where the impotence of internet discussion forums becomes painfully evident.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
Would you actually go out to the building site and interfere?Should I interfere at the building of the gas chambers? Or is it too soon whilst the debate is still to be settled?
Here's the thing: What do you want to accomplish with debate or discussion? — baker
Would you actually go out to the building site and interfere? — baker
To learn, and to teach. — Pfhorrest
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.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
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:So this is what? An exception to the rule? Something you somehow know to be right in ways others can't access? — 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.Indeed. Nor did I ever, anywhere, say that it was. — 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. — baker
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
Pfhorrest's assumption that what they consider right is right for all, is actually wrong? — Harry Hindu
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.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. — baker
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
In fact, this is quite rightfully called a "forum", reminiscing of its ancient function: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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.