I see insults as being the worst aspect of debate, because it seems to be going beyond that, to personal attacking of someone. Once a person goes off into insulting, I usually dismiss what the person is saying, because it seems that they are going outside of rational exploration of ideas. — Jack Cummins

Agreed, but there is a sort smamriness that pervades legitimate remarks. It's not just "outright" insult. That would be too obvious.. It is the subtly of things.. like if I were to say, "For fuck's sake.." etc. So what of those? What of legitimate content wrapped in those kind of unnecessary rhetorical devices?

I maintain the distinction between rhetorical and rational is taste. Not truth — Zophie

So my taste is to poison the well, therefore poisoning the well is legitimate. My taste is to X therefore Xing is legitimate. Is this a case for no rules of conduct whatsoever?

What model of 'desire' are you using whereby a rational answer could be given to the question "Why do you have that desire?" — Isaac

Schopenhauer believed that every character had its own nature outside of the PSR. Thus although it seems we have a sort of spontaneity, it comes from this nature. The motives are already determined by our nature.

But on a broader note, he could be commenting on willing itself. We can't help but will because it is our nature to strive for something in general and due to the PSR often attaches to a particular goal in the world as representation.

In this case, a justification is needed because there was a concretization of survival, not just in the sense that "I eat food", "I go to the bathroom", "I breathe air", but that this is the only thing of value or worth.

But what I was saying doesn't refer to that. Rather, I was asking Xitrix how it is that his justification is not a viscious circle of surviving for surviving for surviving. And he answered me with things like art, beauty, etc. Which I then answered can be things that are not "contributions" in the sense he thought was legitimate in his OP. So the justification for why humanity should continue was not survival alone afterall, but survival to experience the goods of life. I simply brought up that this could mean things that are not classical "contributions" because contributing in itself is hollow without those goods.

But you turned it into a fuckn sarcastic attack as is your nature possibly. As Schopenhauer says...

There is rational discussion, where the goal is to find the truth, and there is rhetoric, where the goal is to convince, i.e. to win the argument. Insults are not legitimate in a rational argument. They don't lead to achieving the goal. Are they legitimate in a debate, polemic, or political speech? They're not nice. They're not civil or honorable. They might work or they might backfire. Are they legitimate? I guess the answer is "who cares." — T Clark

Yep, good distinction an one that seems to be blurred here a lot. Once someone continually shows the rhetoric card, then I am forced to get in the mud it seems too. I don't like the asymmetry, but then.. there I am with mud, so in a way I am already dirty. The problem is that if you don't want to do it, you either take the abuse or go to their level, both are bad options.

So if you're not fighting them, they'll be upset at you, because they're here to fight damnit! — Pfhorrest

Well put.

And if you're unmoved by their blows, they'll be upset at you, because just punching a pillow or a brick wall or whatever is no fun, it's only satisfying if what you hit breaks. — Pfhorrest

Yep, also true.

Not fighting or just quietly absorbing or deflecting their attacks isn't "playing fair", it's some kind of "foul play" in their minds. But of course if you do react to being hit with some kind of hurt response, they'll be gleeful and gloat over that. Basically the only "winning" move (inasmuch as it's a move that will make them stop fighting and not whine about you cheating somehow) is to concede defeat. Because that's what they're here for: the thrill of victory over someone else. — Pfhorrest

Yep, also true it seems.

And while philosophy is aptly analogized to a "martial art of the mind", as someone who trained in TaeKwonDo for 11 years I can tell you the kind of students who come into a class just looking to beat someone up for fun are not taken well. Studying how to fight in a calm, friendly, cooperative, disciplined way has a very different emotional energy than an actual fight, and people coming into such a discipline with that actual-fight emotional energy are not usually welcomed.

I wish there was a place on the internet that was more like a real martial arts club than an MMA FFA ring. — Pfhorrest

It would be nice.

One wonders how I've managed to make it this far without being ostracised entirely. — Isaac

Agreed, you are incredibly rude and hostile. You and Bartricks should have fun together.

Absolutely not, no. I'm afraid I have no idea how I would partake in a discussion, in this format, if my writing a post is considered an 'interjection'. I mean, one presumes that when you click 'Post Comment' you've finished that particular contribution and other can respond at that point. Are we, rather, to wait a polite amount of time to see if you've anything else to say first? — Isaac

That's not what I met by interjection. Blimey, Crikey, For fuck's sake.. those kind of phrases.

It's a tactic, sure, but a particularly lowbrow one at that. It also precludes the discussion from flowing in a "civilized" manner, especially when both parties start engaging in random potshots. — Ying

Yes, exactly.

The only point of arguing is to exchange new ideas. — Pfhorrest

Agreed, especially on a philosophy forum, if everyone's arguing in good faith and not just because one gets some weird kick being pissed off or pissing others off.

Are insults OK here? They seem to be, as long as they don't trigger moderator action. Ridicule? Sarcasm? Seems to be fairly common here. — Bitter Crank

True

You have been presenting an immensely consistent anti-natalist argument with infinite patience for years, and you haven't resorted to ranting, raving, insult, or even (as far as I know) cutting sarcasm. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for at least noting that, haha. I try.

Maybe we should all just shut up and go plant trees. — Bitter Crank

Understand this sentiment.

I've backed lost causes too. Even If they were morally and intellectually superior, they just didn't appeal to most people. C'est la vie. — Bitter Crank

True enough. I do get something out of it if the person I'm debating brings up things to consider.. even if eventually they just get subsumed in strengthening my argument. I was saying earlier that I see productive argumentation in a form similar to Hegel's dialectic. That is to say, thesis-antithesis-and synthesis. There are nascent things revealed in the disagreement that then become realized.

I am not on board with classifying people in this way. — Valentinus

Not sure what you mean.. I'm just saying try not to wrap your content in insult. Just make the argument.

Yeah people like to wrap their arguments in turds. Makes it harder to uncover the bad content inside.

It's rather that we cannot even determine if there is a something that it is like to be a bat. — Banno

Okay, but you'd have to explain that.

I don't recommend "silently taking insults." What Socrates did was turn them into propositions the interlocutor either owned or disowned. — Valentinus

Fair enough. But it's harder when the insults are more like mock indignation or exasperation..

Things like.. "For fuck's sake", "Jesus Christ", "Crikey", blah blah

People like a guy who can take a punch. Or who don't abandon their beliefs under pressure, especially low pressure. — Outlander

So then for example, you would say if someone was debating policy and leadership quality, but your interlocutor, let's call him "Trump" starts talking about how your a bumbling idiot with kids who take cocaine and are of low character.. this is legitimate argumentation? I don't get your machismo, "who can take a punch". The punch is the argument, the throwing sand in your eyes is the illegitimate part.

So you can show us what it is like to be a bat?

Go on, then. — Banno

No, I meant it in the way Nagel was saying "What it's like to be a bat". That is to say, I can't know. I can describe what the bat is doing, and try to analogize it to my own subjectivity, but that's about it.

I suppose the counterargument would be "if candidate B is so smart, correct, confident, and faithful in how his beliefs would hold in true chaos, yet he mentally and emotionally retreats under controlled scrutiny, what torch or rather for how long would he be able to hold it against the views of candidate A", etc. — Outlander

You'd have to translate that a bit.

(It's arguable that music and dancing are done for their own sake either -- as Handle said: "“I am sorry... if I have only succeeded in entertaining them; I wished to make them better.”) — Xtrix

Can you explain what you think Handel meant by "better" here?

Is this sand available only to you? Have you become resistant to such sand? If either of these are true you have a clear advantage. — Outlander

This implies that it would be okay to throw the sand if people can do it.. Shouldn't they both just not throw the sand?

The difference between a real debate of importance and a boxing match is that the latter is purely for entertainment and ticket sales while the former is what allows/determines/or dictates something far greater. One would hope at least. — Outlander

I meant the boxing match as something of importance.. We can make the analogy to whatever suits your sense of important.

There is a quality Socrates exemplified while he bobbed and weaved with those who assigned malign motives to his process. He never answered in kind. The method looks easy until one holds themselves to the rules. I am not an advanced student of the art. — Valentinus

Fair enough, so the burden lies in silently taking the insults... is your answer mainly? What does it say about the insulter though? We keep addressing the insulted.

because what it is like to be you changes.

So it is unreasonable t conclude that it makes sense for a bat - which bat, when? — Banno

If he said, "that bat" would it change for you? I think he means that if we were to experience what another does, it would have a general commonality that we can (literally) empathize with, that something as foreign as a bat to our subjective "way in the world" can not easily analogize.

More of a war tactic though. You make more mistakes when you're angry and not in a state of calm levelheadedness. Then again, iron sharpens iron. If there's no truth to the statement what merit does it hold? That said, as a prominent and influential figure one should be hesitant about lowering the social bar as it were even further. Of course, this is precisely what some set out to do. — Outlander

Right, but how is this "legitimate". If we were to have a fair boxing match and I throw sand in your eye before the match, how is that a legitimate fight?

nonsense. — Banno

Defined by Merriam-Webster, Wittgenstein, or something else?

Merriam-Webster: words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas

Wittgenstein:

Nonsense, as opposed to senselessness, is encountered when a proposition is even more radically devoid of meaning, when it transcends the bounds of sense. Under the label of unsinnig can be found various propositions: “Socrates is identical”, but also “1 is a number” and “there are objects”. While some nonsensical propositions are blatantly so, others seem to be meaningful—and only analysis carried out in accordance with the picture theory can expose their nonsensicality. Since only what is “in” the world can be described, anything that is “higher” is excluded, including the notion of limit and the limit points themselves. Traditional metaphysics, and the propositions of ethics and aesthetics, which try to capture the world as a whole, are also excluded, as is the truth in solipsism, the very notion of a subject, for it is also not “in” the world but at its limit.

Wittgenstein does not, however, relegate all that is not inside the bounds of sense to oblivion. He makes a distinction between saying and showing which is made to do additional crucial work. “What can be shown cannot be said,” that is, what cannot be formulated in sayable (sensical) propositions can only be shown. This applies, for example, to the logical form of the world, the pictorial form, etc., which show themselves in the form of (contingent) propositions, in the symbolism, and in logical propositions. Even the unsayable (metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic) propositions of philosophy belong in this group—which Wittgenstein finally describes as “things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical” (TLP 6.522). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

I lose it sometimes. It is very rare when that was appropriate. Never in a dialectic. — Valentinus

But people do it as part of their argument style. If one person does it, that seems asymmetrical and unfair because the argument seems to have more weight when smarmy sarcasm is added. It seems a rhetorical trick, and like you said.. it is really a rhetorical ploy to::

gaining approval of others who view an argument negatively — Valentinus

But isn't that sort of cowardly? If both people employ it, it just becomes vitriolic argumentation. So it's either asymmetrical or too personal for calm argumentation.

It's an odd question, really. But yes, in general I think beauty and love and music and discovery and spirituality and joy, etc., are all worth living for and worthy of survival. If that seems incredibly obvious and unoriginal, it's because it is: we all share these sentiments. Unless we're pathological. — Xtrix

Ok, so intrinsic goods.. got it. What I'm trying to get at is that some of these things are ones that your OP seem to deem as useless.. Poetry, playing music to yourself, joy doing something non-social, etc.

'm not expert on "debate" and I'm not even sure I really know what it means. I once saw a few seconds of a moderated high school debate on TV, using rules. I was flummoxed. I always thought debate was logical argument. Boy was I wrong. — James Riley

I don't really know either, but this forum isn't it. I would say having a good faith dialectic with someone is what should be happening (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), considering things that haven't been considered. I don't expect a "winner" but what can happen is that each side finds ways to strengthen their arguments and consider things otherwise not considered. However, often it just ends up with interjections, mean-spirited sarcasm, and insults. And thus, you are correct here:

So, insults may be legitimate debate tactics. But insults are legitimate logical argument tactic in the the same way that shucking a gun and shooting your opponent in the face is a legitimate logical argument tactic. — James Riley

Yep.

If done well, I think they can be very effective. But as noted, most of the time they aren't a good idea. There are degrees of insults too. — Manuel

Jesus Christ, this is bad.

If they're effective, they're legitimate. Usually they are irrelevant but ultimately it's a matter of taste. — Zophie

For fuck's sake...

I'm really tempted to just start doing this, even though that's not usually my style. I'm just going to start everything with "For fuck's sake...are you kidding me?" etc.

Survival for its own sake is a justification..concept, not will. Oh and do you know how to make a case without interjections and condescension? I mean I can add "dipshit" at the end of everything I address to you; it's unnecessary but certainly called for.

I want humanity to survive, yes. I’d like to contribute to solving the problems it faces. — Xtrix

But my point is what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself?

I think you ought to distinguish ethics from law. Law is enforced, but law is not properly "ethics". Ethics is a code of principles for moral behaviour, and adhering to that code is a matter of choice. You might have people criticize you for being unethical, but so long as you break no laws in your unethical behaviour, ethics will not be forced on you. I believe it is fundamental to western ethics, that ethical behaviour is a matter of choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

True, I do think that distinction should be made as well. However, when I say "obligatory", I don't mean, liable by state prosecution. It's more following one's own intuitions to alleviate acute suffering when one sees it- a drowning child, a person in danger, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "force" here. Could you expound? I don't see how procreation is a force. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if I was to kidnap you and "force" you to follow a character-building life, that would be wrong. It overrides my good will to want to see what I think is best for you. Procreation is the same thing. The parents have a preference for the game of life, yet they presume that their preference should be enough justification to create more people who must follow this game of life (lest they die of immediate suicide or slow death of starvation/neglect). I call this de facto situation of having to play the game of life being "forced", because the only alternative is violent self-harm.

More broadly then, we have to not assume that our worldview is something others must take on (including the game of life itself). This would be a violation of someone's dignity as autonomous beings. Thus there is something deeper going on here than some "positive program" for things like self-improvement. Rather, what is a deeper ethic is not messing with other people unnecessarily, and preventing situations of unnecessary suffering if one can help it. Suggesting and persuading is about all that is permitted without going too far in the violation of someone else. Procreation falls under violating that threshold of violating autonomy as it is a definite unnecessary force and certainly causing unnecessary harm (unnecessary because there is no person to mitigate a lesser harm for a greater one, but purely creating conditions for all harm for that person).

The principle of "the good" is based in what is natural, not in some form of obligation. As living beings we have needs and wants, so we naturally seek what is apprehended as "good". Obligation is a result of relations with others, and we are required to adjust our perception of "good" accordingly. — Metaphysician Undercover

This I don't really understand because I can show you many cases where what people seek are any number of things and define those things as "good".

In other words, "Where's the beef?" What has all this reading and philosophizing accomplished? What is it doing for you or others? That's not totally fair, of course, but I insist it's worth asking. — Xtrix

If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not. — Xtrix

So I think you run into a vicious circle when you pick out "contribution" as having a special meaning.

First off, what does "contribution" even mean here? Let's say it means everyone should spend time creating new technogy or building a house. They should spend their whole day building. That's all they did. What are we building for? If you say survival of the species, that also begs the question. Presumably there are some emotionally satisfying goods in certain activities. Humans need to survive so they can survive so they can survive seems absurd. If you say there's simply "good" in continuing the survival of the species, you haven't justified or proved it.

If you're saying that there is more emotional satisfaction in creating poetry than reading it, I can get that, if theres evidence somehow, this brings more satisfaction. However, if you say writing poetry is somehow lesser than building a house, I would question the evaluation for reasons I stated, of a viscous circle. It would have to be explained more why this is better other than to keep ourselves alive. Ameoba survive..what is the significance of that in itself?

Ethics may focus on bringing about such pleasures, and this would be completely distinct from preventing suffering. — Metaphysician Undercover

My problem in the realm of ethics here is that it is forced on autonomous adults. As long as that is not the case, then character-building is perhaps "ethical" just as any self-help thing might be for people who prefer that. However, I don't see it as strictly "ethics" in terms of obligatory. I think it more properly belongs under a larger axiology though because it has to do with "value".

While it might be something we might recommend, to others, the negative ethics of preventing suffering when one clearly sees it, seems more obligatory. Once one gets into the realm of unnecesasry "force" onto autonomous beings (adults with usual faculties let's say) we are treading on not just amoral (yet axiological grounds), but actually unethical grounds.

When we look at the future, we move toward what is designated as the "best" course of action, we do not make our decisions based on avoiding the worst. It is only when an extremely bad circumstance is imposing itself, that we must focus on avoiding it, but in most ordinary situations we are focused on bringing about the good. This is the same principle which Plato demonstrated, the good is not diametrically opposed to the bad. So avoiding the bad does not produce the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I am perfectly fine if people want to pursue this or that axiological program. My beef comes in when it is forced onto others. Thus, ethics proper (not just axiological pursuits of "the good") if it is based on what is obligatory, seem to be balancing preventing harm/suffering while balancing not unreasonably forcing others into one's own agenda. Force being the key here. Thus for example, procreation is definitely a force because life itself is the agenda of the challenge/overcoming-challenge (you may spin it as a chance for character-building). That doesn't matter what you call it, it is a forced program that others have to follow. If that person doesn't feel this program was something they wanted, you have have now assumed an agenda that violated their own autonomous attitudes, feelings, experiences, etc.

The same would be said for the lifeguard.. If I was to force the lifeguard into character-buildign classes to make him a better lifeguard, that would be wrong. I can try to persuade him what was best.. but my idea of what "the good' is, just to me rings hollow as "ethics". Rather the stronger obligations are to force and unnecessary suffering prevention.

It's not a circle, but there is the possibility of an infinite regress. Why is A good? For the sake of B. Why is B good? For the sake of C. Etc.. That's why Aristotle posited happiness as the ultimate end, to curtail that possibility of infinite regress. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I see what he did there, but then one can ask, "Is putting another person in a game of character-building to survive/flourish better, good in itself to do on behalf of someone else in the first place?"

Preventing/reducing suffering seems to be the only ethical stance that avoids assuming others should deal with X thing, even if you yourself thinks it is valuable. It is much harder for people to eschew the idea of preventing suffering than it would be almost any other value (including the oft-praised "character-building" trope and "flourishing" when discussing virtue theories).

So in a truly ethical (and not mixed with some other concern such as political decision-making), one must ask, "Is this going to reduce or prevent harm to someone without unreasonably assuming what is "best" for another person"? Procreation, for example fails this test, because it does the opposite of prevent harm, and at the same time, thinks what is best for someone else.

I had a debate with another poster about waking up a lifeguard to save a drowning child. Technically, I did violate the lifeguard's sleep. They were "forced" to wake up, and I assumed what was "best for him" in that situation. But when balancing the reduction of harm with the aspect of not unreasonably assuming what is best for another person, I would think this does not meet that threshold. However, I do think that if I forced the lifeguard into a lifetime of lifeguard training because I thought the best outcome would result from his teaching others to be competent lifeguards, then that would be unreasonably assuming what is best for another person, even though it was reducing the most harm. So suffering/harm reduction isn't the only consideration. The dignity of the people involved, which includes not unreasonably forcing them into what you think is best for them is also a factor. Thus, one must balance these two considerations of harm reduction and violating people's dignity as their own decision-makers and autonomous people.

Some forms of pain are necessary to build strength. And not only is exposure to certain types of pain necessary to build physical strength, exposure to different types of agony and despair are necessary to build strength of character. — Metaphysician Undercover

But you run into a viscious circle justifying why "strength of character" matters other than Aristotle said it. You can maybe throw in the other typical things associated with him- the ancient form of eudaimonia and some modern form like Maslow's hierarchy, but this too would be hard to justify as to why people other than yourself must endure anything. When it comes to other people, the "negative ethics" of preventing suffering may be more tied to their inherent dignity than the "positive ethics" of promoting character building. One major reason is that ethics around preventing suffering is the minimal amount of "judging what's best for other people" while still considering their inherent dignity or worth as people.

If you contribute nothing to the world except your own satisfaction, even when there are real problems to be solved, what good are you? — Xtrix

See my thread here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10642/credibility-and-minutia

Seems like it. Maybe Bartricks or Schopenhauer1 will respond and we can see if they differ. — T Clark

I don't really know what this one is. This by itself isn't antinatalism proper:

If we could freely change our form, and age, then being a child linked to parents should be their choice, and not the parents choice, or should have a potential cut-off point.

To conclude, childbirth is immoral but is beautiful art, some may prefer this lifestyle, but that should be a decision for the child to make primarily as it must live in unison with it's parents. — ghostlycutter

Unless he is saying, the child needs consent prior to birth, ergo, since consent can never be had, by a child prior to its birth, procreation should not occur, then it is not AN.

It seems more like an argument for somehow choosing parents, etc. but the OP is oddly phrased so can't elaborate more on it.

What I think an important distinction people often miss in these discussions is the map and the terrain. A lot of it may come down to "what" exactly are properties. If mental states have properties like a photon or a gluon has properties, that would be an odd conclusion because that is saying mentality is just a brute fact of existence, quite the opposite of what materialist conceptions would like to think. Thus, often materialists unintentionality fall into ontologies that posit mentality as somehow fundamental.

The opposite is when it is all map and no terrain. Stephen Hawking once said famously:

What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. — Stephen Hawking

And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty? — baker

So I don't know how you are using pessimism here, is my point. I have never heard "pessimism" be someone's reason for poverty. I have heard a bad set of circumstances (job loss) coupled with bad economy, structural poverty that is generational, drug use, certain preferences and habits, etc.

Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along. — baker

This is ridiculous and honestly shouldn't be waste typing on this but:
1) You can argue that anyone who doesn't have proper access to ANY idea is only "viable" for people with that access. This goes for scientific ideas, philosophy, or any academic writing.

2) A crude form of "life is suffering" or even "this shit ain't worth it" can count as philosophical pessimism to me, so this is amenable to anyone, and perhaps may be especially realized by those who are suffering most acutely. But to attribute the poverty to this conclusion is reversing the order of things.

3) I think it ironic you bring this point up when I JUST wrote a WHOLE thread about how people view productivity in socioeconomic terms as how credible a philosophy is. So my point in the thread was that "respectable middle-class types" would more likely view a philosophy as more legitimate because they were "productive" in society. So my example included a person who was extremely "productive" (in the respectable middle-class sense) of creating innovative technology and even designed and built buildings and homes.. All things one woul associate with some positive philosophy of "pragmatic-realism".. now imagine that person is a Philosophical Pessimist. This would be a "kick in the balls" for people who think in these terms of credibility because their "man" is now associated with a philosophy they loathe. There is now a cognitive dissonance they have to accept of this person who is supposed to be "credible" for them, also associating with a philosophy they would normally eschew.
See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10642/credibility-and-minutia