Respectful Dialog
Respectful dialog
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?
Personally, I do, even if an opposing argument is presented disrespectfully. I think it is about setting a standard, both in general and for myself, and that this standard forms part of the merit of any position. Rawls' notion of the duty of civility is illustrative. 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.
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?
Personally, I do, even if an opposing argument is presented disrespectfully. I think it is about setting a standard, both in general and for myself, and that this standard forms part of the merit of any position. Rawls' notion of the duty of civility is illustrative. 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.
Comments (59)
I agree with this. 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 doesnt mean it always results in a productive debate, one that is worth anyone elses 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.
So as I see it, its not just a matter of hurt feelings and thin skins, as those commentators seemed to imply. Its about how enjoyable, productive, substantive, and welcoming a debate is.
Otherwise, keep it civil.
@BC
Too, I think the nature of the discussion is significant. Discussions can be more polemical, if people are on different sides of historically exclusive positions (e.g. idealism versus materialism); or they can be more collaborative, when trying to reason innovatively within a domain of basic consensus. I think the trick is to maintain an awareness of the collaborative nature of discussion, even while it is polemical.
Of course hostility doesnt always produce a productive debate. If we are dealing with an opponent who is being uncivil we have more than one option. Certainly we can simply end the discussion. This is a good idea if our opponents hostility triggers our own anger and defensiveness, leading us to assume they are incapable or unwilling to engage in logical argument.
Another option depends on our ability to resist having our buttons pushed by others attacks and instead recognizing their hostility as exasperation over a response they disagree with but dont know how to effectively unpack. My last exchange with Bartricks is a case in point. I responded to his OP, my response frustrated and threatened him because he disagreed with it but couldnt break it down to points he could focus on calmly.
His obnoxious comment to my response got my competitive juices flowing, not because he angered me, but because I saw beyond his anger to his exasperation, and saw that as a challenge to myself to formulate my arguments fully enough to give him an entry point into my reasoning. And thats exactly what happened. He essentially acknowledged a point I was making, albeit reluctantly and in a backhanded way.
In sum, hostility on the part of someone Im 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 theres a large gap between their thinking and mine , and its a valuable challenge to me figure out how I might close this gap by building a bridge between their perspective and mine in a way that wont trigger them. Usually when we focus on the others incivility we have already decided that such a task is impossible , that our opponent is irrational, uninterested in learning from us , closed-minded. And were usually wrong.
Ive debated with a majority of those who have been banned from this site, been insulted by most of them , and also achieved productive dialogue with each of them.
Quoting Jamal
I dont think one can separate the hurt feelings from the enjoyability and productiveness of a debate. I achieved enjoyable and productive debates with people that others here failed to do. My point is that this is not entirely a function of the incivility behavior of one participant in a debate. We have more power than we realize to produce something productive from it.
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.
Then why do you consistently ignore my replies to you?
Didnt realize I was doing that. Usually when I dont respond its because I dont have anything useful to add.
It's a laudable attitude to see it as a challenge. As long as it doesn't stay one-sided forever.
Really! I guess I am kind of a dinosaur at 58. What decade are you, if you don't mind me asking?
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.
Also, sometimes the truth is not civil. Operating under a pretence of civility when this is the case is not only dishonest and coddling, it is generally unproductive. Too much sugar coating and the fact you needed medicine is too easily forgotten. :wink:
:up:
Agreed. Habits have to be exercised to be created. Growth is difficult.
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.
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...
But some people defend stances which are criminal, and as such if one remained talking to those people in a civil manner, one would in fact be supporting those criminal stances or displaying immorality.
This is not to suggest that one should be uncivil sometimes; it's that some conversations should be terminated.
It all goes back to what one hopes to accomplish through talking.
I think talking is mostly overrated anyway.
Agree.
Hmm. Yes, cultural relativism and all that, good point. And this unfortunately means that we could legitimately be immune to a reasonable argument if its basis is too far outside our familiar sphere. I just read something in Proust that speaks to this on the limits of the 'competence of genius':
One may have had genius and yet not have believed in the future of railways or of flight, or, although a brilliant psychologist, in the infidelity of a mistress or a friend whose treachery persons far less gifted would have foreseen. (Within a Budding Grove)
In this respect, our most cherished ideas are certainly like friends, to whose shortcomings we might be blissfully immune. Ideas and theories always exist in larger contexts, and it isn't always about what we perceive as internal consistency, is it?
It's always a challenge to transcend personal relativism.
Yes, that would be de facto "uncivil" (certainly by Rawls' standard, which is public reasonableness).
Sure, it is possible to have genuine civility. I remarked on how it is more often not the case in the context of debate or argument. The pressure of debate brings out the weasel in people, and civility is often the means by which they avoid accountability.
There can be no accountability among equals to begin with.
All those self-appointed doctors!
Agree. I think for many people philosophy has a broad aim of providing coherence and integration, but as humans we are not overly coherent and integrated. I personally don't find the metaphor of 'ultimate truth' or the Kantian style 'reality as it is itself' useful and am not really looking for that angle. Which means there will be gaps between myself and those who do think in terms of ultimate truth. Whether those gaps lead to disputation and acrimony remains to be seen. This is where civility is most tested it seems to me (and in politics, but isn't that often a variation of ultimate reality - a contest of metanarratives?)
goal, model, standard...it could be realized empirically in a number of ways....
My personal experience has been only learning the virtues of the dispassionate after losing my cool over and over again. The lessons keep coming.
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.
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.
Otherwise, all contentions between ideas are a spasm of opportunistic sophistry.
I hear that. My experience too, although more shooting off my mouth.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Paine
As above, if your spirited debate is based on mutual respect, then this is the result.
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.
...dogmatic slumber?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting PantagruelYes.
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.
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.
:100:
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.
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).
Was that an instance of a Richardean paradox?
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.
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.
:lol: :up:
A complaint typically levied by those lacking the virtue in question.
:rofl: