Philosophical Discussion and Getting Wet

Spencer Thurgood

I have noticed as I discuss philosophy both online and in person two things. First that philosophical discussion is alive and well in modern society, and second that seems to exist, generally speaking, in one of two categories.

The first is a discussion in which present day events and historical events are discussed and used as resources to create what could be argued as the perfect society. This is generally found in productive discussion of politics, ethics, morality, etc.

The second is a discussion that often revolve around the social sciences and even some of the psychological sciences such as "gender identity", "consciousness", "spirituality". These debate tend to be subjective in conception, ie "are we a simulations on a computer" and as a result are very difficult to have a productive conversation about.

Having recently reread Thomas More's Utopia, I wonder if the second group of discussions are what More refers to when he says, "it is just as if someone were to stand in the rain and argue with those who are standing in the sun that they should come in out of the rain, while they themselves remain outside in the rain. For in the end both will be wet, and the one who was trying to persuade the others will have achieved nothing." (Utopia Book II, Chapter 8 Thomas More).

What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category?

T Clark

The first is a discussion in which present day events and historical events are discussed and used as resources to create what could be argued as the perfect society. This is generally found in productive discussion of politics, ethics, morality, etc.

The second is a discussion that often revolve around the social sciences and even some of the psychological sciences such as "gender identity", "consciousness", "spirituality". — Spencer Thurgood

Although I have some interest in the subjects you describe and have participated in discussions related to them, my primary interest is in metaphysics and epistemology. For me, those are subjects that can lead to greater self-awareness about how we think, which is the primary benefit I get from philosophy.

What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category? — Spencer Thurgood

If you've looked at many threads here on the forum, you will find good evidence for your position. Those discussions don't often come to any conclusion and we often go over the same issues over and over again. Still, I find them useful for articulating and clarifying my thoughts on those subjects.

For me, philosophy is as much about process as it is about subject.

Spencer Thurgood

If you've looked at many threads here on the forum, you will find good evidence for your position. Those discussions don't often come to any conclusion and we often go over the same issues over and over again. Still, I find them useful for articulating and clarifying my thoughts on those subjects.

For me, philosophy is as much about process as it is about subject.

T Clark

Fair enough. I understand that often in the act of trying to debate something we better understand our own opinion on the topic.

Gnomon

What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category? — Spencer Thurgood

I agree that much of the posting on metaphysical topics soon devolves into polarized Polemics instead of dispassionate Philosophy. The arguments may not convince anyone, but they do tend to offer challenges to personal presumptions. Such exercise may contribute to knowing thyself. :smile:

Vera Mont

What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category? — Spencer Thurgood

I don't think either kind produce anything. I think discussion can't be measured in terms of productivity; its function, rather, is to stimulate thought. Whatever impression is made on the participants won't manifest immediately or necessarily in ways of which the other participants would be aware, but ideas are generated in mysterious ways.
It's true that in our current period of history humans tend to divide in all things, on all issues, along some kind of factional lines - it's a very binary, either/or sort of era, not unlike the 16th century in Europe.
That era, while highly discordant and contentious, proved very productive, indeed, in terms of innovation, culture, political, economic and religious reform...
Don't be too hasty to write off any intellectual activity, just because it doesn't show obvious results.

Tom Storm

The first is a discussion in which present day events and historical events are discussed and used as resources to create what could be argued as the perfect society. This is generally found in productive discussion of politics, ethics, morality, etc.

The second is a discussion that often revolve around the social sciences and even some of the psychological sciences such as "gender identity", "consciousness", "spirituality". These debate tend to be subjective in conception, ie "are we a simulations on a computer" and as a result are very difficult to have a productive conversation about. — Spencer Thurgood

I haven't noticed this. I've mostly noticed discussions about epistemology and metaphysics mostly. We seem to keep coming back to what it is we can say about knowledge/truth/reality and how we can know it. In the end most discussions or arguments hinge upon these matters as the fundamental building blocks for anything else we may go on to say about morality, science, the transcendent.

I don't think any discussion goes anywhere if people are too firmly attached to their presuppositions - doesn't matter if we are talking politics, cookery or bushcraft. But the curious thing is even zealots do change their minds and the debates they participate in can create significant shifts in their thinking, even as they fervently insist you are wrong. I've met many atheists, for instance, who are former religious fundamentalists and the process of change, when viewed from the outside by others most likely looked like complete resistance to new ideas. You just never know what will make a person change. Or when it might happen.

Gnomon

I haven't noticed this. I've mostly noticed discussions about epistemology and metaphysics mostly. We seem to keep coming back to what it is we can say about knowledge/truth/reality and how we can know it. In the end most discussions or arguments hinge upon these matters as the fundamental building blocks for anything else we may go on to say about morality, science, the transcendent. — Tom Storm

A wise insight! :up:

Unfortunately, some of us posters --- for the purpose of winning arguments --- sub-divide our ontological fundamental blocks of knowing & thinking into socially-determined (political or religious) fundamental beliefs. Which opens a trap door for endless mis-understanding. :sad:

Spencer Thurgood

haven't noticed this. I've mostly noticed discussions about epistemology and metaphysics mostly. We seem to keep coming back to what it is we can say about knowledge/truth/reality and how we can know it. In the end most discussions or arguments hinge upon these matters as the fundamental building blocks for anything else we may go on to say about morality, science, the transcendent. — Tom Storm

I guess a good example of the first discussion would be when people discuss things like political and are open to actually listening to different view points. Generally, it seems that the discussion quickly finds common ground, ie. 'everyone should be able to act according to their belief' and then diverges into how that common ground is applied 'limited interference by government in the acting of those beliefs' vs 'censoring those actions based on laws and regulations'.

I see this as being different than say a discussion of whether or not this 'reality is a simulation on a computer' in which finding that common ground is very difficult.

I don't think any discussion goes anywhere if people are too firmly attached to their presuppositions - doesn't matter if we are talking politics, cookery or bushcraft. — Tom Storm

I agree. Until all parties involved are willing to actually sit down and talk with the intent on learning something, no discussion is going to be productive. It is also true that even discussion that might seem like they are going no where are in reality causing subtle shifts in people's thinking that will alter their beliefs, and in so doing their actions.

Tom Storm

I guess a good example of the first discussion would be when people discuss things like political and are open to actually listening to different view points. — Spencer Thurgood

Interesting. I generally see political conversations as amongst the most tribal and intractable, so I haven't often had the experience of common ground in those discussions. I would have thought simulation theory is much easier and more fun for people to talk about than right-wing versus left-wing political solutions.

Certain issues are just in themselves controversial, like abortion or taxation or gun ownership, which readily find people ranting and shutting down.

Spencer Thurgood

I generally see political conversations as amongst the most tribal and intractable, so I haven't often had the experience of common ground in those discussions. — Tom Storm

Maybe I've just been lucky thus far then. For the most part when I have a discussion of politics it starts out on tired old battle lines, moves to common ground, and then diverges again into different ways of application. Granted a lot of time those divergences are back to the battle lines, but I feel, as you pointed out before, there are subtle shifts in both parties perspectives that will allow for different actions in the future.

Tom Storm

↪Spencer Thurgood

Well, I prefer your account as it implies hope.

Philosophical Discussion and Getting Wet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions