I read some comments to the effect that heated conflict gets the creative juices flowing. I think this is only true in the case where there is an established underlying camaraderie, that won't be damaged by such conflict, an underlying respect and agreement. — Pantagruel
@BCIt’s about how enjoyable, productive, substantive, and welcoming a debate is. — Jamal
I also think that those comments in favour of heated conflict were based on a basic misunderstanding. Even if there are some people who enjoy that kind of thing, it doesn’t mean it always results in a productive debate, one that is worth anyone else’s while to join or to follow. In fact, abusiveness produces, at the very best, low quality debates that revolve around who misquoted whom, who took the other out of context, and so on. — Jamal
So as I see it, it’s not just a matter of hurt feelings and thin skins, as those commentators seemed to imply. It’s about how enjoyable, productive, substantive, and welcoming a debate is. — Jamal
do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel
In sum, hostility on the part of someone I’m engaged in debate with get me motivated not because I want to ratchet up the ill feelings , but on the contrary, because it tells me there’s a large gap between their thinking and mine , and it’s a valuable challenge to me figure out how I might close this gap by building a bridge between their perspective and mine. Usually when we focus on the other’s ‘incivility’ we have already decided that such a task is impossible , that our opponent is irrational, uninterested in learning from us , closed-minded. And we’re usually wrong. — Joshs
We have more power than we realize to produce something productive from it. — Joshs
Yes, but I also think this is a thing of the past, a mark of the social dinosaur. People outrude me all the time, so I always lose and they win — baker
do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel
:up:In theory and intent, I agree. Alas, sometimes my temper gets away with me. I've gotten better over my years here. I give the forum credit for that. — T Clark
Operating under a pretence of civility when this is the case is not only dishonest and coddling, it is generally unproductive — DingoJones
Based on some recent intrigues, I'd like to pose the question, do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel
But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. — Pantagruel
Yes. I very much prefer polite, abuse free discourse. I have rarely seen disrespect serve the interests of an argument. Sound reasoning is unaided by calling someone a moron or grotesquely impugning motivations. That said, people come from different worldviews, cultures and sensitivities, what may be intended as a conversation in good faith may be perceived as unreasonable. Sometimes people become enraged by phrases or approaches which for them hold special resonance (in a bad way). And sometimes we are rude without intending to be. This can then provoke reactions and you know the rest... — Tom Storm
That said, people come from different worldviews, cultures and sensitivities, what may be intended as a conversation in good faith may be perceived as unreasonable. Sometimes people become enraged by phrases or approaches which for them hold special resonance (in a bad way). And sometimes we are rude without intending to be. This can then provoke reactions and you know the rest... — Tom Storm
But some people defend stances which are criminal — baker
Maybe. But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. I interpret this as saying, that is difficult. — Pantagruel
The pressure of debate brings out the weasel in people, and civility is often the means by which they avoid accountability. — DingoJones
Too much sugar coating and the fact you needed medicine is too easily forgotten. — DingoJones
ideas and theories always exist in larger contexts, and it isn't always about what we perceive as internal consistency, is it? — Pantagruel
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.