Debate Civility

According to Karen Armstrong in “The Case for God” (2009), debates among the ancient Greek philosophers were not shouting matches of I’m right and you’re wrong. They were done with the utmost civility and respect between those engaged in the debate. The goal of those debates was to arrive at a better concept of whatever was being discussed than each “side” in the argument could present.
Why is it so difficult to debate in that way here?

I think you need to read another book.
KA is no student of ancient history.

She does realise that Socrates was put to death over an argument about piety and the nature of god.
How civil and balanced was that?

How does she deal with Socrates persecution?

But they were very polite when they put him to death, surely.

Civility was prized, for a real reason. The reason is what was mentioned. Killing and assault was far more acceptable then. Now you can’t beat the crap or kill someone for disagreeing with you , without prison in the picture. Back then it just was not so. If you think someone might attack you, civilty would be crucial in disagreements

Probably because philosophy mostly was always an aristocratic endeavour where manners were a virtue. Today, philosophy often emerges from the lower strata. Manners and civility are not a virtue amongst the lower classes. The plebeian types take their character into their philosophy. Faecal matter covered in sugar is still faecal matter.

This may be an idealized version of ‘how things were’. But let’s say it was the case. It was a different culture. Perhaps they were more obsessed with form and style - as opposed to the various topics. Their main goals might have been to appear smart and rational and NOT boorish, so the topics were less of the focus. My sense is that people here and also now are often passionate about what they are arguing for. Sure, they may want to appear clever, have excellent form in writing, but I think there is much more interest in seeing if they can support or undermine an idea because it matters. So tensions are going to be higher than in a culture where it is much more a performance. Greek culture, was, well, a classical culture. Sorry for the tautology but the word classical, as opposed, say, to romantic, has to do with clear forms, sharp outlines, architectural rhetoric, distinct geometrical shapes - you can take these to varying degrees as metaphorical and apply them to art, speech, writing, ideas, social interactions, war. Romantic and expressive models of communication are now much more the norm. From most people’s perspective a modern Harvard vs. Yale debate is an an anal, overly formalized, machine-like process, and you will much more civil discourse there also.

Civility is good, but then I think there is a heavy price to pay when form gets raised above content and achieving perfected performance gets put higher than being a particular human expressing him or herself.

I agree with this. I think there was a class effort on the part of these guys. They were distinguishing themselves from barbarians and the lower classes. I can’t say how irritating their version of refinement might have been, but I don’t think it necessarily means much that they kept things under tight and performance-related control.

I’ve read hundreds of books and have degrees to prove it; however, I do not consider my opinions as any more valid than anyone else’s. The failure of current debate to reach the standards set by the ancient Greeks is a matter of hubris. I realize I can be wrong. K.A. is only my latest read, not my ultimate read. I once had a prof who bragged of seventeen years of Greek and Latin studies, but in teaching, she was able to show humility and was delighted in every student’s strivings to gain knowledge of things she already knew
The old schoolmarmish nit picking of grammar and logic is, for me a pain in the patoot.

‘Valid’ is a key word here. It can’t be confused in any way with ‘true’. One can’t consider one’s views nor more or less true than anyone else’s. That would be very strange. But one could consider the expressing of them to be somewhere on a part with other people expressing their views.

Of course one can have, on occasion, the sense that one might be wrong, even about some very basic things one is certain of. But that is in those moments.

I don’t think hubris is the issue, frankly. I cannot think of anyone who comes more certain than a number of the famous Greeks. That they were civil and careful articulators was their style.

The issue makes me think of English vs. American speaking styles, especially some of the upper crust or well educated English ones. The English mastered ways of very subtley putting someone down and then out, all the while remaining calm, letting the other person finish his sentences, everything rational,

but the knives are just as sharp.

Because clearly your mum is a whore. j/k

Face to face changes the dynamic of any argument, on line is missing 90% of any language or meaning, and of course it’s populated by a lot of bored, facile and disingenuous knuts. I think we have all seen the difference between face to face dialogue and keyboard heroism, in both other people and no doubt ourselves. This is not a medium for civility this is SPARTA! Oh no wait! This is not a Greek forum Sparta or otherwise, oh god this is all going pear shaped, I should quit while I am behind. :stuck_out_tongue:

=D>

it does not have to be disgusting, juvenile, cool discourse…it can change…but change is hard work…

That may be because we all come to the fora in disguise. That makes it easier to debate in is/isn’t infantile ways.

so ier maybe i love philosophy is nothing but josting amongst juvenile knights practicing …

Almost any debate position can find numerous references to back it. What I’ve found here are a few who, in their arrogance, dismiss other perspectives on the issues as ignorant. To them, I’d say, “GO write a definitive book and leave the possiblility of learning new and different ideas to the rest of us.”

There are two types of debate posts; those that provoke and those that evoke.

the very problem on these forums… and you dont find much discussion about it…

Perhaps anonymous posts encourage rudeness and perhaps because there is no cost. Banning is not exactly a real cost. If a teen buys their own car with their own hard earned money they tend to take better care of that car, drive safer than one that has been gifted a car and is used to privilege.

I agree and consider being able to post at ILP a privilege.

i feel the same way and i am expecting respect both giving and receiving…