Where does civility belong in debate?

[suergaz]

Cato:

I disagree. In fact, it looks to me he neither understands what the purpose of civility is, nor does he want to admit that he only wants a discussion free of the niceties of having to consider the sensibilities of his opposite merely so that he can say what ever he wants to say without rapprochement.

I don't think that's accurate.

And his foolish ideas of eliminating the 'self" in discussion is as absurd as the rest of his ideas. Man is nothing BUT the self. He may as well be asking a cat to consider itself a dog.

I don't think the elimination of the self was what he had in mind when he wrote it would here be most beneficial, but impossible for everyone to 'leave their value of self at the door'.

Further, I'd bet he walks about in life imagining that he is so much better than all around him because HE can subdue his "self" and think logically... yet he is so congratulatory of his "self" for the achievement.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

No, Andrew is no more wise than many others. But he HAS succeeded in fooling himself that he is.

I think he is wiser than many others. Dan is wise for directing attention to motives, you are wise for listing patience and good humour in your list of civilities, and I am wise for abandoning every consideration of morality, evil, ethics and its trappings, and addressing the personal above all.

(Edited for a slip in civility brought to my attention below:)

[Dan Rowden]

Cato wrote:

Civility

-Discussion without name calling

If I think someone is a fool - I mean sincerely think it - and feel that it would be good for them to hear it, is it not civil for me to say it? You did this with Andrew so I presume you make an exception regarding folly? Whilst I understand what you're saying I still find it highly problematic and an issue that significantly involves motive. Calling a person a misogynist or a misandrist or an misanthropist isn't necessarily uncivil if you think it's true. It all turns on whether one is engaging in such behaviour for petty egotistical purposes.

-Discussion without assumptions of automatic superiority (at least not on constant display of that feeling, anyway)

I don't think that's a matter of civility. I think it's a matter of rationality. Any such assumption would be irrational. One has to establish such a fact before feeling or expressing superiority over another. But again, didn't you kind of do this with Andrew just before?

-Not constantly interrupting who[......] )

Shut up; I was speaking.....

-Asking about a point instead of assuming you KNOW what he "really" meant

Again, that seems more an issue of plain rationality to me. And, once again, I wonder if you weren't guilty of this with Andrew...

-Having Patience and good humor

Patience, sure. Humour? Nah. Too subjective to demand of anyone. What I find funny no-one else does. Does that make me humourless? Humour is all too often mindless anyway...

But, in a discussion of presumable import like philosophy, the first one is prime.

I don't agree. The primary element is any philosophical discussion is a shared valuing of truth and reason. If that doesn't exist, neither does a philosophical discussion...


Dan Rowden

[Sapius]

I disagree. In fact, it looks to me he neither understands what the purpose of civility is, nor does he want to admit that he only wants a discussion free of the niceties of having to consider the sensibilities of his opposite merely so that he can say what ever he wants to say without rapprochement.

I don't think that's accurate.

And his foolish ideas of eliminating the 'self" in discussion is as absurd as the rest of his ideas. Man is nothing BUT the self. He may as well be asking a cat to consider itself a dog.

I don't think the elimination of the self was what he had in mind when he wrote it would here be most beneficial, but impossible for everyone to 'leave their value of self at the door'.

Further, I'd bet he walks about in life imagining that he is so much better than all around him because HE can subdue his "self" and think logically... yet he is so congratulatory of his "self" for the achievement.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

No, Andrew is no more wise than many others. But he HAS succeeded in fooling himself that he is.

I think he is wiser than many others. Dan is wise for directing attention to motives, you are wise for listing patience and good humour in your list of civilities, and I am wise for abandoning every consideration of morality, evil, ethics and its trappings, and addressing the personal above all.

Zag, is it that a person who claims to know and live Infinity, suddenly losses common sense?

Not only you, but also many others repeatedly fail to quote the person they are quoting. How long does it take to do that? How do you expect one to go back and look up who you are responding to? Unless you expect one to remember each and every thing said by each and every one when one comes back.

Do you expect one to read the whole thread, every time, and then make some sense of your last post? Identifying the person you are quoting gives one an idea of the personality you are dealing with, hence giving a better picture where he/she comes from and make some sense of your response. Your response will surely be according to your understandings, but there is a possibility that I might see the same quote differently because I have my own understanding of that personality and what he/she might have actually meant, which may make your response nonsensical, to me, or, at least your post make sense to me considering that I know that you know and understand the personality and are indeed responding appropriately.

Talking about civility! Lets talk common sense first. :)

That goes for all who follow suit.

.

[suergaz]

I do not fail to name who I am addressing except by accident. I think you Sapius also see this. Please forgive me.

[Sapius]

Hey, Zag, I know, and that did not warrant an apology as such.

I simply mentioned it since it happened to be in the appropriate thread. There are others doing that in this thread itself, but I know whose post I should point that out with, to avoid immature emotional responses.

.

[Cato]

danrowden,

If I think someone is a fool - I mean sincerely think it - and feel that it would be good for them to hear it, is it not civil for me to say it? You did this with Andrew so I presume you make an exception regarding folly? Whilst I understand what you're saying I still find it highly problematic and an issue that significantly involves motive. Calling a person a misogynist or a misandrist or an misanthropist isn't necessarily uncivil if you think it's true. It all turns on whether one is engaging in such behaviour for petty egotistical purposes.

Yes, I agree. There can come a time when being dismissive is a must. What I am talking about with civility is that some people start out this way and never give their opponent the slightest chance to start out otherwise.

By the way, being called a misanthrope of a "misandrist" is not necessarily "name calling". Those are actual words with actual definitions. By name calling I was thinking more along the line of "asshole", "Moron", or saying "you are stupid". Even if true there isn't any reason for such language.

Of course, frustration is always an element, too.

I don't think that's a matter of civility. I think it's a matter of rationality. Any such assumption would be irrational. One has to establish such a fact before feeling or expressing superiority over another. But again, didn't you kind of do this with Andrew just before?

I never claimed perfection. It is always a battle to remember your rules of engagement.

However, "rational" is not something that can be assumed, is it? "Rational" discussion must first START with civility before all involved can realize that rationality will be the tenor of conversation.

After all, strict rationality can also mean dispassion and dispassion can often mean indelicacy. Indelicacy will usually come off as being a jerk to those unaware that no emotional baggage is meant to be brought into the conversation!

It all starts with civility before one can realize that you are not meaning to call names or act like a superior jerk-off!

Shut up; I was speaking.....

:)

Patience, sure. Humour? Nah. Too subjective to demand of anyone. What I find funny no-one else does. Does that make me humourless? Humour is all too often mindless anyway...

I'm sorry, but "good humor" is not the same as "being funny". Good humor is kindness and having a bright outlook. NOT "funny". Being funny is certainly subjective, but having a sunny countenance is not.

[Andrew]

Well I was very surprised to read your response to my post, Cato. If it’s any consolation at all, you did pretty much completely miss the entire pitch of my meaning, and you also misjudged my character.

I'm sure Dan here would agree, if it was in his nature at all to do so, that as opposed to having a superiority complex as you implied, or priding myself with my ability to separate my “self” from my thought, I usually, in fact make suggestions with full acceptance that what I'm writing may be complete rubbish. Then, if my opinions are attacked, I am more likely than most (perhaps) to internalize any negative replies, and then find it very difficult not to become defensive and not to engage in a quest to defend my “self” - as opposed to the objective content of my opinions.

I've always had the perception of there being a scale between, on the left, a completely stodgy, ignorant, human-animal, following social convention without thought or question and, on the right, an ideolistic spiritual with their head in the clouds, living totally inside a structure of their own randomly chosen beliefs. I /think/ you placed me quite far to the right, though I consider myself being embarrasingly far to the left, but with many aspirations of developing some of the more benefitial aspects of the right wing members.

Anyway, the reason I point these things out is to try to give you a clearer understanding of why, I would argue, you shot yourself in the foot.

I wouldn’t hesitate to class your post...

Andrew is a wise man.

I disagree. In fact, it looks to me he neither understands what the purpose of civility is, nor does he want to admit that he only wants a discussion free of the niceties of having to consider the sensibilities of his opposite merely so that he can say what ever he wants to say without rapprochement.

And his foolish ideas of eliminating the 'self" in discussion is as absurd as the rest of his ideas. Man is nothing BUT the self. He may as well be asking a cat to consider itself a dog.

Further, I'd bet he walks about in life imagining that he is so much better than all around him because HE can subdue his "self" and think logically... yet he is so congratulatory of his "self" for the achievement.

No, Andrew is no more wise than many others. But he HAS succeeded in fooling himself that he is.

...as lacking in civility. I think one of the primary reasons I would say so is because the greatest proportion of your post seems to consist of negative opinions about me personally, as opposed to the suggestions I made.

Anyway, this post is going to be hypocritical to a degree, since I am after all talking about you, Cato, as opposed to talking about any real ideas. So onto clarification of what I meant by my “self”.

I had been visiting Genius-L for a number of years and had become accustomed to the general consensus there. One view often agreed upon by the regulars was probably /the/ primary concept put forward by people like Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Dan Roden and before them, many branches of eastern mysticism: That the ego / the “I” / the “soul” is actually an illusion; the existence of this illusion being the cause of much human suffering (if I got that wrong, sorry, its been a while). I assumed too quickly that this would be understood immediately by everyone here.

I think there is a great deal of people here far better suited to explaining this whole idea than I am. But the way I make sense of it is that there are two “things” that can be described as as “the self”. Firstly, there is me, being the person who thinks, perceives, and the personality who you are all witnessing. Secondly, there is the “inner me” who sits in between the perceptions, and the thoughts – the “inner me” who experiences all the perceptions, and directs all the thoughts. This “inner me” is also the “soul” which could conceivably have the ability to go into someone else’s body and experience being “them” instead of “me” (as opposed to the “inner me”). I could go on, but I think I’ve made a big enough dog’s dinner out of this as it is.

What is suggested is that this “inner me” is a completely unnecessary delusion. (I’m sure many here would say the “me” me is a delusion too – but, ugh, give me a break). Even though you may be happy to accept that there is only actually the “outer you”, I have become convinced that nearly everyone does actually extrapolate into existence their “inner I” and that this is a very significant cause of a range of problems in society – most notably the issue of civility on internet forums!

I think I’ll end by making my own tentative suggestion of the most important aspect of civility, at least what I consider to be the most general idea of what being civil entails: Be respectful.

Andrew

P.S. That is my real surname. *considers changing his username*

[Dan Rowden]

Cato,

Dan: If I think someone is a fool - I mean sincerely think it - and feel that it would be good for them to hear it, is it not civil for me to say it? You did this with Andrew so I presume you make an exception regarding folly? Whilst I understand what you're saying I still find it highly problematic and an issue that significantly involves motive. Calling a person a misogynist or a misandrist or an misanthropist isn't necessarily uncivil if you think it's true. It all turns on whether one is engaging in such behaviour for petty egotistical purposes.

Cato: Yes, I agree. There can come a time when being dismissive is a must.

I'm not sure "dismissive" is the right characterisation. If it's an accurate label, offered with sound motive, then it is fine as far as I'm concerned. Civility does not mean avoiding upsetting someone (as that can sometimes be impossible to achieve).

What I am talking about with civility is that some people start out this way and never give their opponent the slightest chance to start out otherwise.

In such a case you're speaking about a person who isn't actually interested in dialogue at all. Such a one is not worth talking to in the first place...

By the way, being called a misanthrope of a "misandrist" is not necessarily "name calling". Those are actual words with actual definitions. By name calling I was thinking more along the line of "asshole", "Moron", or saying "you are stupid". Even if true there isn't any reason for such language.

I still think this can be distilled down to rationality rather than matters of civility. Those latter mentioned labels will, for the most part, constitute mindless ad hominems. At other times they may be expressed in circumstamnces where civility is not the best approach. Such circumstances do occasionally present. Again, as I've said, I think motive is all important here....

Of course, frustration is always an element, too.

To "vent" out of frustration is something I would, in fact, characterise as uncivil.

Dan: I don't think that's a matter of civility. I think it's a matter of rationality. Any such assumption would be irrational. One has to establish such a fact before feeling or expressing superiority over another. But again, didn't you kind of do this with Andrew just before?

Cato: I never claimed perfection. It is always a battle to remember your rules of engagement.

It shouldn't be a matter of memory, though; it should be a matter of nature. If you have to remember to be civil, you are not civil by nature.

However, "rational" is not something that can be assumed, is it?

It's something that should be brought to the table. In terms of philosophical discussion I would argue that it's the main prerequisite. Zag would probably say "love" but then Zag is a retard :)

"Rational" discussion must first START with civility before all involved can realize that rationality will be the tenor of conversation.

Ok, but for me you have that entirely arse-about. Rationality produces civility bcause with it one's priorities will be more directed to beneficial discourse. Civility simply flows as a natural consequence. I'm not much interested in mindless, herd-driven, socially conditioned notions of what it means to be "civil".

After all, strict rationality can also mean dispassion and dispassion can often mean indelicacy.

It also recognises indelicacy for what it is and is not disturbed by it. I have no interest in people's delicate egos other than in the sense of destroying them.

Indelicacy will usually come off as being a jerk to those unaware that no emotional baggage is meant to be brought into the conversation!

Sure, but only an idiot thinks that most people don't bring some emotional baggage into conversations. But we ought not wear that baggage on our sleeves, or at least we should strive not to. I do not believe people should feel as though they have to pander to it in some way. It very quickly overtakes discourse and makes it all about the person and their "issues". That's fine if such "issues" are the subject in question, of course.

It all starts with civility before one can realize that you are not meaning to call names or act like a superior jerk-off!

Ah, but an irrational person will never realise this, which is why I contend that civility begins with rationality and indeed flows from it.

Dan: Patience, sure. Humour? Nah. Too subjective to demand of anyone. What I find funny no-one else does. Does that make me humourless? Humour is all too often mindless anyway...

Cato: I'm sorry, but "good humor" is not the same as "being funny". Good humor is kindness and having a bright outlook. NOT "funny". Being funny is certainly subjective, but having a sunny countenance is not.

Personally, I can't stand people wih a sunny disposition. They remind me of clowns. It depends somewhat on where they are at developmentally. If their disposition and level of philosophical development don't match, I immediately suspect insanity. Light-heartedness is all too often reflective of light-mindedness; not always, but all too often (I'll give you 3-1 odds-on that Zag pulls me up on that point).

Rational people have a rational disposition. That's the kind of "outlook" I like to see...


Dan Rowden

[frank]

Where does Civility belong in a debate?

Civility doesn't belong anywhere...that's ridiculous.

Philosophy is the discovery of the Obvious...try it.

It's just something (civility) that One can attach to something else (debate) if one wishes...

If you wish to exist it...you wish to exist it...and you do it to the best of your ability...for Yourself.

Using civility as a Weapon to club Others with who don't do civility...is something else...

frank

[Blair]

Somewhere on this forum, Cato got his feelings hurt. Too bad.

[suergaz]

Andrew:

I had been visiting Genius-L for a number of years and had become accustomed to the general consensus there. One view often agreed upon by the regulars was probably /the/ primary concept put forward by people like Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Dan Roden and before them, many branches of eastern mysticism: That the ego / the “I” / the “soul” is actually an illusion; the existence of this illusion being the cause of much human suffering (if I got that wrong, sorry, its been a while). I assumed too quickly that this would be understood immediately by everyone here.

That view has been dismissed by me, the incredible zagreus.

[Cato]

Somewhere on this forum, Cato got his feelings hurt. Too bad.

???

How is that possible? This was about my FIRST posting!!

But, nice example of incivility, there!

[Chadwick Stone]

Somewhere on this forum, Cato got his feelings hurt. Too bad.

???

How is that possible? This was about my FIRST posting!!

But, nice example of incivility, there!

Cato, something I learned early on in my Internet adventures... leave your feelings at the door.

[Cato]

Danrowden,

I have no interest in people's delicate egos other than in the sense of destroying them.

... and

Personally, I can't stand people wih [sic] a sunny disposition. They remind me of clowns.

Don't have many friends, do you?

Actually, I should like to remove the question mark there. I'd rather make it a statement.

Now that you have given me enough examples of your thought process, I can safely dismiss your knowledge of civility as inconsequential, uninformed and out right hostile. further, I can safely deduce that you are awkward in personal interaction and think yourself far better than all whom you meet.

It's a shame that the first lesson a true philosopher learns has thus far escaped you.

However, it was diverting, if nothing else.

[Jamesh]

Now that you have given me enough examples of your thought process, I can safely dismiss your knowledge of civility as inconsequential, uninformed and out right hostile. Further, I can safely deduce that you are awkward in personal interaction and think yourself far better than all whom you meet.

I wouldn’t dismiss them until you understand where they are coming from better. Read some of The Hour of Judgment Radio transcripts here and you’ll see that they are quite civil, even where totally dismissive of the shallowness of the rote learnt ideas of others.

They do think they are far better than all whom they meet. To some extent that is justified – I haven’t seen a better collection of philosophical information than that which they have collected and put on to their websites (albeit that some of the stuff that relates to women is overdone, a bit hostile - notwithstanding that many of the points they make need to be stated and they have concentrated on it because one’s love of the feminine is the most difficult hurdle for a masculine person to overcome).

A philosopher of any type should really have already learnt to ignore misdirected hostility – if they haven’t they are no philosopher.

Masculinity to some extent demands at least some degree of hostility – it has its place. In part masculinity means endeavouring to change the thinking of others, and the soft feminine style that everyone expects nowadays, particularly the under 35’s who have been spoilt by the politeness demanded by the feminine-minded, now society controlling, authorities, simply does not cut the mustard. The over 50’s who were raised in a manner where shallow meaningless civilities were demanded by authorities, also have a bit of trouble adjusting. I prefer a lot more hostility than these two groups are used to (though I feel guilt when my hostility is misdirected, where my ego gets in the way too much).

You need some degree of hostility to make people a little emotional. At first they will be defensive, but if they are ever going to grok what the QRS are on about they’ll mull over things and get over this defensive hurdle and hopefully will be able to think more deeply.

It's a shame that the first lesson a true philosopher learns has thus far escaped you.

That refers to academic philosophers only, who tend not to be “true” philosophers for the most part. Academic philosophers often understand the words of true philosophers, but only in a limited way – they don’t tend to fully digest the trueness in the philosophical works of the greats, except those parts of the philosophy offers some form of perceived benefit to them.

[frank]

Cato:

It's a shame that the first lesson a true philosopher learns has thus far escaped you.

Subject= true philosopher
Verb= to learn or failed to learn perhaps
Predicate= It's a shame that the first lesson has thus far escaped you...

hehehe

escaping lessons...hahahaha

hahahaha...hilarious...thanks

frank

[Sapius]

Cato,

What makes one civilized if not his rationality? Animalistic instincts?

If one is irrational, then that is in question, not his civility.

.

[Cato]

"There are in fact four very significant stumbling blocks in the way of grasping the truth, which hinder every man however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to wisdom, namely, the example of weak and unworthy authority, longstanding custom, the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and the hiding of our own ignorance while making a display of our apparent knowledge." ---Roger Bacon

[Dan Rowden]

Jesus wept, did you actually read that quote and apply it to yourslelf? Apparantly not. Anyhoo:

Danrowden,

Quote: I have no interest in people's delicate egos other than in the sense of destroying them.

... and

Quote: Personally, I can't stand people wih [sic] a sunny disposition. They remind me of clowns.

Don't have many friends, do you?

Incredible. You preach to me and others about civility; I offer you some candour and you respond to me with this utter insipidity? Words fail me. I can hardly believe that kind of arrogance exists. You are a walking exhibit A to my point: "In my experience those who "know" what civility is are usually those what wish to impose their personal egotistical sensibilities onto a discussion." But thank you for confirming what I already knew and proving me correct. And by the way, it is an act of insolence to use [sic] in response to an obvious typo when quoting someone. For someone so self-professedly well versed in civility, you are a strangely uncivil cunt.

Actually, I should like to remove the question mark there. I'd rather make it a statement.

All you are doing is demonstarting that you are clueless. Is that your intention?

Now that you have given me enough examples of your thought process, I can safely dismiss your knowledge of civility as inconsequential, uninformed and out right hostile.

Is intolerance of diversity of opinion part of what it means to be civil? Must I agree with you to be deemed "civil"? Are you even remotely aware of your own moral despostism? Do you even understand the things I said or does civility include the mystical ability to automatically judge aright?

further, I can safely deduce that you are awkward in personal interaction and think yourself far better than all whom you meet.

That is so funny. You really are a smug dipshit. I was so astounded by your reply that I went and had a couple of beers down the pub and all the guys agreed that you're a presumptive twat. What is your opnion of Nietzsche's writings? Do you know that he was widely liked and considered a very personable and affable man? Do you know anything about human psychology? Do you know the difference between the literary environment of an Internet discussion board verses everday life? Do you know what a serious philosophical discussion entails? Do you think it's the equivlent of two housewives engaging in gossip over the back fence?

It's a shame that the first lesson a true philosopher learns has thus far escaped you.

You haven't the first clue of what philosophy is. Hopefully it will dawn on you one day.

However, it was diverting, if nothing else.

Yes, I can see that diversion is what you're actually into.


Dan Rowden