My personal experience has been only learning the virtues of the dispassionate after losing my cool over and over again. The lessons keep coming. — Paine

I hear that. My experience too, although more shooting off my mouth.

It may be germane to point out how the matter of contentious arguments were the bread and butter of Classical Greek culture. One of the central themes in the Republic is how the rude and abusive challenge by Thrasymachus was transformed into the well-reasoned debate of later chapters. A number of Plato's dialogues were brawls peppered liberally with personal insult. That element was recognized as part of the "dialectic" even when criticized as inferior. — Paine

Great point. I was wondering when the spirited debate point was going to be addressed in earnest. It can be interesting to try and figure out where to draw that line. As I said, I think the more there is a genuine mutual respect, the more 'spirited' things can become, productively.

Another influence for me on the subject is Nietzsche saying that one has to be careful about who one bothers to oppose because the effort is also a recognition of their importance. That suggests that there is a balancing point where expressions of contempt cancel the object of defeating an idea. — Paine

As above, if your spirited debate is based on mutual respect, then this is the result.

:yawn:

All's fair in love of wisdom and war. And besides that, I'm an asshole (i.e. dialectical rodeo clown).

:clap:

:up:

In regard to mutual respect, how do you see that in the context of Nietzsche's attempting to undermine Christianity, as such? Or the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.?

To put it most broadly, the arguments did not assume mutual respect was the order of the day. Even if some of the arguments were relatively civil in comparison to the alternatives.

Well, there is discussion and there is dispute. When the dispute becomes fundamental enough, that's where it gets nasty. Christianity had a stranglehold on culture for centuries and didn't do it any favours. But when your talking civil rights and politics, that goes beyond mere polemic because it is directly tied with practical, fundamental differences in lifestyles that materially affect other people. So arguing about whether ostensive definitions are real, or how many angels fit on the head of a pin, isn't in the same category as arguing about whether there should be racial equality, or equitable redistribution of material wealth and opportunity. When a dispute degenerates into mutual disrespect, I'm sure both parties feel that they are being reasonable. I totally respect the ultra-wealthy as human beings, but they need to be taxed out of 90% of their shit and have their privileged influence permanently revoked.

↪Pantagruel :yawn: — 180 Proof

...dogmatic slumber?

:smirk:

↪Pantagruel :smirk: — 180 Proof

:up:

do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel

Yes.
Just to muddy the waters, I'd like to broaden the category of respect (and civility).
There are a number of ways to be disrespectful without being openly rude. IOW philosophy discussions online (other types of discussion also) allow for all sorts of passive-aggressive disrespect. Here's a common one. Instead of responding to specific points/criticisms, someone restates their position: assertion as justification.
It's a bit like the topic of trolling. Yes, it's pernicious when someone starts threads just to trigger people. Or the openly rude person who just starts being condescending and insulting. But honestly, for me, and I would guess others, the bluntly and openly rude troll is fairly easy to deal with. It's all right there on the table. You know what is happening.
I think the tougher problem are quasi-trollers. They never quite respond to points made. They rephrase instead of justify. There can be cut paste aspects to their responses. (IOW they did respond, in the sense that your post made them think of some stuff and they wrote that). They can classify you or your argument - not in a directly insulting way (by calling it or you stupid), but as mere physicalism, say, or _________[any category that would be considered wrong or problematic to somebody]. We could call this dismissive or categorizing as critique, rather than some real analysis or justification.

There are a number of other online behaviors (and I think they are a bit easier online unless you are family members, say, who can do this in person quite easily].

So, the first time this happens, we tend to explain, critique the response, ask for clarification, remind them of our points, etc. But once it becomes a pattern it is vastly more pernicious than the open troll.

The complications of even bringing this up:

Now, should there be consensus in agreement with me, perhaps rude people will claim that anyone they are rude was doing this. IOW they didn't start it.
All of us are likely guilty of this kind of problematic communication to some degree. We will have done this kind of thing in some, probably many posts.
It can be done unconsciously. In fact, I think it is often unconscious. We focus where it feels good to focus.

Well, one may ask me. Isn't this just a good argument to keep respectful when faced with this subtler trolling. This keeps the rude people from having a new kind of excuse for their abuse and keeps the door open for a civil discussion.

I agree in general.

I'd leave open the door for a parting, not so civil reaction to such patterns. I think it should be ok to be disrespectful if one feels like one has been disrespected, especially if one is clear how (what you experienced). What we really don't want it threads with bile going on and on. Insult matches or whole exchanges that may well include some philosophy but are stained with mutual disrespect in a series of posts.

Or we could reframe a parting to the 'man', if not ad hom, post that is pointing our what are perceived as personal flaws in the other person and includes an express of frustration or anger
as respectful of dialogue and philosophy and even not necessarily a negative thing for the person it is aimed at to experience. In another forum I sometimes wish there was a kind of spontaneous intervention, where a number of (clearly frustrated) posters do just that: say they are not interested in continuing dialogue with someone, explaining why and they don't have to be nice about it, and leaving that thread or ending (at least for a time) their communication with that person.

I balk at the Jesus-ish idea that one must turn the other cheek with regularity and be civil, while at the same time not wanting snarling threads all over the place.

Would we hold to the former out in the physical world?

And I note that the anger I am talking about is not aimed at the position someone holds, but the manner in which they communicate, even if it is passive aggressive or convenient for them rather than openly hostile.

Well, one may ask me. Isn't this just a good argument to keep respectful when faced with this subtler trolling. — Bylaw

Yes. In fact, what you are describing possibly indicates an unexcavated difference in fundamental assumptions, the apples and oranges situation. I'd question your use of 'subtle trolling' as I think the definitive characteristic of trolling is that it is intentional and premeditated. Whereas abuse can also take place when both parties are attempting to reason in good faith.

A big factor here is the problem of real-time digital interaction. Human beings have reasoned together cooperatively for millennia. There is a gravity conferred by the real presence of another human being that imposes an overall tenor of mutual respect on a verbal conversation. In digital communications, some people assume a tone they wouldn't dream of doing in person.

There is a significant difference between a barroom and a classroom, but even so... incivility in a barroom might earn a punch in the nose. Even between friends, incivility might not be tolerated. There is certainly a place for raucous slash and chop discussion (usually lubricated with beer), as long as everyone accepts the terms of discussion. — BC

I believe that the issue here is that face to face discussion is fundamentally more civil than the distanced interaction on a computer screen. When we are face to face there is an intuitive trend to respect the other person as a fellow human being, regardless of the amount of alcohol involved. The fear of a punch in the nose may contribute to this respectfulness, but it goes a lot deeper than this, to the basic apprehension of the other as a human being.

This is a problem which has permeated to all levels of our modern technologically advanced society. When people communicate without face to face interaction, this gives them a sort of freedom to escape their own identity, and behave in a way which is unbecoming. So when we communicate with email, text, etc., we lose a degree of civility because the "personal" aspect of the conversation has been removed. We often do not talk to the other as a friend, whom we hang around with face to face, but as an associate whom we have an obligation to deal with. This opens up a struggle for power, like a need for superiority.

At its extreme, we feel safe that the punch in the nose, to put me back in my place, cannot come. However, this is a false sense of security, because an employee can be fired, and a member of TPF can be banned. We've seen this scenario develop, and become very evident with "road rage". For years, being in a car has provided that slight separation between people, giving them the opportunity to act rudely toward others, hiding behind one's car, knowing that retaliation cannot come. But now, that has become a false sense of security because there is no telling what tricks the other driver might hold up the sleeve.

:up:

And assuming the goal is truly productive, sharing of ideas, collaborative effort, the new depersonalized modalities may actually be limiting progress rather than enhancing it. Which is why I think focusing on the idea of civil dialogue is a legitimate topos, and not a snoozer.

I'd question your use of 'subtle trolling' as I think the definitive characteristic of trolling is that it is intentional and premeditated. — Pantagruel

I think subtle trolling can be premeditated, especially in heavily moderated forums. But I've noticed the seemingly oxymoronic phrase is now fairly commonplace out there. That said, I mean it as a challenging idea. And why should someone oblivious or sneaky, who can end up torturing someone for pages, be considered less a troll?

In digital communications, some people assume a tone they wouldn't dream of doing in person. — Pantagruel

Yes.

I also think in person, when dealing with passive aggressive and/or unconscious irritating responses, a simple 'Come on' coupled with the facial expression and tone of voice expression of irritation often can snap someone out of their habits. Especially if you follow up with a short clear explanation of what you see as going on.

Online, the other person does not have to worry that they already showed through their own body language that they were 1) affected by the irritation and care about it and 2) kinda, sorta know what the other person meant. With time and distance, they can more easly, pretend to be unmoved and come up with what they think is a deft response admitting nothing. They are also playing to the gallery.

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

I always start out in a respectful matter, but if the person I'm debating acts with disrespect or a rhetoric that's destructive and arrogant I usually call them out on it. If that doesn't help, I sometimes go down into more brute force logic in order to show them how they are the ones not caring for the debate and that their behavior is the problem. And if that doesn't help I usually end up mocking their inability to grasp basic standards of a debate before exiting the room.

I rarely sink to those people's level and when I do it might just be that I'm tired and doesn't have the time to deal with other people's stupidity.

I'm generally of the opinion that if someone constantly acts ill-willed, dishonest, arrogant, angry, bullies others and being a general asshole, they have rendered themselves irrelevant to be part of any type of debate, discussion or event to talk idéas etc. since the only time they are able to keep it calm is when everything aligns with their biased point of view. Such people cannot contribute to a constructive discussion at all, because they are unable to be open to other perspectives, not even to the point of seeing a different perspective to test out if their own convictions are truly correct.

Such people are psychologically unable to be able to participate in any such discussion or debate until the time they have dealt with their psychological inability. Since most people find it almost impossible to change a solidified individual psychology, most of these people will always be unable to participate in philosophical discussions.

We've all met people who are downright impossible to talk with, other than on a pure shallow level like "good weather today" - "yes, it is". These people will always defend their opinions, regardless of how stupid those opinions are, with fists if necessary.

So yeah, obligation to treat others with respect is a fundamental part of philosophical discussion, otherwise the topic being discussed will never transform into new knowledge, it will just be a debate with fists that only solidifies the different opinions further into deep cognitive bias.

So yeah, obligation to treat others with respect is a fundamental part of philosophical discussion, otherwise the topic being discussed will never transform into new knowledge, it will just be a debate with fists that only solidifies the different opinions further into deep cognitive bias. — Christoffer

:100:

And assuming the goal is truly productive, sharing of ideas, collaborative effort, the new depersonalized modalities may actually be limiting progress rather than enhancing it. Which is why I think focusing on the idea of civil dialogue is a legitimate topos, and not a snoozer. — Pantagruel

Oh I strongly agree, it's very important, not a snoozer. In this world of electronic communication we need to practise the skill of respectfulness, because it does not seem to come naturally, it takes effort. So this forum provides an excellent platform for this exercise. We all need the practise.

:smile: :up: :100:

Provided parties are trying to be intellectually honest, and deal with arguments fairly, then what does respect add? I've learned a lot even during intense and even hostile debates, but the requirement is being a harsh critic of yourself and to be willing to give others a win. Collaboration between completely opposing views isn't possible, you need to put your argument forward and let people try to smash it and see how well it holds.

I don't want respectful disagreement, I want attempts at annihilating my ideas. If they show flaws, I can make a change, if they show the idea to be entirely wrong, then I can replace it. If I think my idea holds, I can feel reassured. It's only a problem to be talking with someone who actually has no intent to talk seriously, and just wants to inflict damage, then I get bored.

An intense debate is more fun, and I love conflict.

An intense debate is more fun, and I love conflict. — Judaka

Debating inherently entails an element of sophistry in that the presentation is understood to be part of the argument, and that one should be able to argue either side of an issue equally effectively. And I don't question that this has a real effect. But it does tend to lend a lot of weight to the loudest voice. I agree there is an element of debate here, but I think this digital forum lends itself more to the exaggeration and abuse of the negative features of debating while realizing none of the benefit, which is the direct interchange of ideas a personal level. So maybe debating is not in all ways an ideal model of interaction (other than in an actual debate).

This thread consist in impotent virtue signalling.

Was that an instance of a Richardean paradox?

Context is important here. There is a significant difference between a barroom and a classroom, but even so... incivility in a barroom might earn a punch in the nose. — BC

I try to keep the tone as I would if I were talking to someone iin a bar. The discussion might get a little robust but I try not to say anything in a forum that I wouldn't say face to face.

Indeed, the thread is falsidical. Mine was a meta-post.

This thread consist in impotent virtue signalling. — Banno

The idea that virtue signalling is a negative would be valid if it were hypocritical. If it is presented and upheld as a model then it isn't virtue signalling, it is simply...virtue. Which I guess speaks to the the intentions of would-be detractors.

He is taking aim from the balcony, not rebutting your thesis.

I carry an umbrella in case it rains.

↪Pantagruel
He is taking aim from the balcony, not rebutting your thesis.

I carry an umbrella in case it rains. — Paine

:lol: :up:

This thread consist in impotent virtue signalling. — Banno

A complaint typically levied by those lacking the virtue in question.

"John, F**k you!" said Mary. "F**k you too" replied John. The ice cream truck trundled along outside, "F**k you, F**k you, F**k you" it went. I wanted an ice cream. I walked up to the truck, greeted the nice ice cream man and said, "F**k you." He replied with a big smile on his face, "F**k you". I passed a beggar, with an ice cream in my hand, looked at him, "F**ck you!" said he. I, to the beggar, "Fuck you too!" Dropped some coins into his cup!

I walked past some senior citizens im the park, playing chess. They were exchanging words, "Fuck you!" "Fuck you too!" I saw a newspaper stand, looked at the headlines, "FUCK YOU!, FUCK ALL OF YOU!" That's some news. I had to tell my friend. I whipped my phone out, then scrolled through my contacts, Fuck you 1, Fuck you 2, Fuck you 3, that's my friend, Fuck you 3. I dialled his number. He answered. "Hey Fuck you 3, FUCK YOU! FUCK ALL OF YOU!" I screamed, unable to contain my excitement. "Fuck you too!" came the reply. — Flash Fiction and Writing Prompts

:rofl:

Ditto! :rofl: :rofl:

:snicker: