Forum Philosophy Update

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Serendipper » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:51 am

I think its odd that the ones arguing most vehemently for authoritarian control are the ones stridently breaking the most rules. It's advocating for one's own punishment and, not only is that hard to understand, but it also seems not very reasonable.

Phyllo, you said things that you regret as if you should have been issued demerits for the errors which places you likewise in the category of having "bewildering" motivations. Why would you want to give yourself warning points?

The rules state:

However, we are a community first, and as a community we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. A community based on the exchange of ideas cannot persist when individuals are attacked as individuals for the ideas they express. Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.

Because ideas are so central to a person's life, they can contain deep significance. Enshrining the critical consideration of all ideas while maintaining a civil discourse can be difficult. Therefore, radical positions must be approached delicately. Certainly, philosophy is a story of radical ideas, and so such ideas are welcome, but the radicalism of an idea must be balanced with a proportionate care in expression. The line between radicalism and antagonism is thin.

ILP is its members, and the ideas they bring with them. This site is a community. When that community falters, ILP falters in its purpose. The actions of its members define its tone, its quality, and its utility as a haven for the ideas it holds dear. Let your actions here reflect that ethos.


More specifically:

2.1 Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.

2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.


Holy cow to that last one! Let's read that again: If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them a warning may be issued.

How is everyone here not banned? :confusion-shrug: Kinda feels like that moment when Jesus recommended that the one without sin should cast the first stone :lol:

But really... why are the ones harping about the rules also most-unable to keep the rules?

And how has Mr Reasonable been here for 11 years while accumulating 25,000 posts yet still be unable to adhere to the rules which he so enthusiastically defends? :confusion-scratchheadblue:

I realize this post may be construed as demeaning and whatnot, but how else am I to convey the conundrum?

This is reminiscent of the gun debate wherein the ones advocating for stricter control are, statistically, the ones more likely to need it. I'm curious why that is.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:16 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Holy cow to that last one! Let's read that again: If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them a warning may be issued.

How is everyone here not banned?
I wish this kind of pattern was responded to. Not banning, but something like a forum consensus, to, well, shame.

I have found this thread interesting and have learned that:
1) two checker players, playing a checker game could not mutually decide to change these arbritrary rules in the middle of a game. Decide say that Kings can jump over two squares. No not possible. More relevantly the 'game' of discussing philosohical ideas cannot have its rules changed over time by the people having these discussions. We simply cannot change that. In ten years ilovephilosophy must have the exact same social rules as it does now. It is physically and socially impossible to 'change games in the middle' of this long, extended set of games.
2) stirring debate is a problem in a philosophy discussion forum.
3) one should break rules in specific but argue against the freedom to do so in general
4) Carleas is being victimized in this thread
5) that while Patterns of interaction that are normal in nearly every social, professional and leisure activity are wrong here. I.e. shaming. We should not use 'pointing out patterns of interaction we dislike' as members of this community. Though advocates of not doing this have had a tendency to do it themselves here.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:15 pm

I think its odd that the ones arguing most vehemently for authoritarian control are the ones stridently breaking the most rules. It's advocating for one's own punishment and, not only is that hard to understand, but it also seems not very reasonable.
:shock: If I break the rules then I ought to get penalized. That's only fair.
Phyllo, you said things that you regret as if you should have been issued demerits for the errors which places you likewise in the category of having "bewildering" motivations.
I regret posts where I was manipulative and where I let my frustration get the better of my judgement.

It does appears that you are "bewildered" by my ethics, morality and motivations. The fact that I want the current forum rules to be enforced seems to be "bewildering".
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:02 pm

More relevantly the 'game' of discussing philosohical ideas cannot have its rules changed over time by the people having these discussions. We simply cannot change that. In ten years ilovephilosophy must have the exact same social rules as it does now. It is physically and socially impossible to 'change games in the middle' of this long, extended set of games.
The forum rules are not being enforced so it hardly matters if those rules are replaced by new rules which are not going to be enforced.

Furthermore, you don't have a problem with breaking the written rules, so really the only rules in effect would those that "the community" gets together on at any moment. These "rules" (for lack of a better word) are going to be vague and undefined. Right?

Since there are only about 20 active members here, in practice the shaming would be done by two or three people.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:21 pm

phyllo wrote:

But I like Serendipity see nothing wrong with you breaking forum rules and playing the game differently than Carleas would like.

Then you don't accept the rules of the game and you are playing a different game - a game where you have decided on the rules. And you have decided without the approval of the other players.

I don't want those changes. I didn't agree to those changes. I signed up with specific rules in place.

So where does that leave me in this game?


That's a good point.

So what rules do you have to have?
Why are you asking me another question? I asked for an answer from Karpel and you.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:17 pm

phyllo wrote:
What does it really mean to take someone's advice with regard to the hole that I have dug myself into?
A number of people have given you advice on how to deal with your dilemma ( Moreno for instance). Yet I don't recall any posts which indicate that you took any action.


Here I would need you to note what that advice actually was. That way I could comment on its applicability given the existential parameters of my own life here and now. And the extent to which I have the option to act on it with respect to conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world.

Instead, you note this:

phyllo wrote: For example, someone might tell me that he has back pain and I suggest that he tries Yoga. If he comes back and says that he tried 4 classes over the span of a month it didn't help, then I know he took some action. Unfortunately it did not work.
If he says that he has back pain but he makes no mention of my Yoga suggestion, then I would suspect that for some reason Yoga does not interest him. I might suggest something else like Pilates or Feldenkreis.


This is embedded far more in the either/or world. Many do in fact suffer from back pain. And these methods have in fact been demonstrated to be effective in relieving that pain.

It can all be more or less measured if the options are pursued.

On the other hand, you could tell a woman that if she does not want to risk a possible unwanted pregnancy, she should avoid sex altogether. Or engage only in oral sex or anal sex or masturbation.

But if she chooses to engage in vaginal sex and practices safe sex and still becomes pregnant, is it rational/virtuous to abort the pregnancy?

How is that calculated with any degree of finality? What advice could someone like Moreno offer to her?

phyllo wrote: And after a while, I get tired and bored of hearing about it. That's especially true when it's a one way discussion of his problems. I would probably like some advice and sympathy about my problems. But if we constantly have to talk about his back pain, I don't get what I need out of the interaction.


What could be more discomfiting for a man or woman then to confront the question "how ought one to live?" and come to conclude this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Since you are not drawn and quartered yourself when confronting conflicting goods in a No God world, I would not expect you to grasp just how discomfiting that frame of mind can be.

On the other hand, what if you come to embody it yourself?

Then you too could seek out possible remedies.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:48 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Still, my point regarding that which is of interest to me philosophically -- how ought one to live in the is/ought world? -- is basically that feeling shame doesn't really make much sense.


Shame is interpersonal - it may or may not come from objective values, but it certainly need not. It is about having done something that my community, including myself, has a problem with. They don't like it, they think God forbids it, they think it leads to negative consequences, they think it smells aweful, whatever. It's a social mammal thing, and whatever your epiphenies have accomplished, you are probably still a social mammal even if you are an anti-social one. If you are a psychopath, well, then it's not a category error.


Yes, but this "social mammal" construes "I" here in the is/ought world as revolving largely around this:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Here, shame/shaming is deemed to be an existential/political contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

In other words, while I come into this world with the genetic capacity to feel and/or inflict shame, that is always situated out in a particular world awash in any number of conflicting memetic narratives.

Consequently, to what extent can philosophers pin all of this down such that shame/shaming is understood wholly, essentially, objectively, naturally, deontologically.

Why? Because in recognizing that my views here are in turn [subjectively/subjunctively] just existential contraptions, I acknowledge right from the start that I once rejected them before and, given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge, I may well reject them again.

Indeed, with respect to identity, value judgments and political economy, and given how grim, how bleak and how utterly cynical my frame of mind is here and now, a part of me would very much like to "think up" a way to jettison all that.

Then I too might engender the sort of "comfort and consolation" that I construe to be embodied in the objectivists among us. I have access to none of that here and now.

Given the moral and political interactions of mere mortals in a No God world, I honestly do believe "in my head" that "I" live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that segues eventually into oblivion.

And if some are able to convince themselves that their own interactions with others revolve around an essentially meaningful world that segues eventually into one or another rendition of immortality and salvation then, hey, come in, who "wins" in the end here?


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Honestly. Can't you see how fucked up it is to repeat this here, again. It is not relevent to the topic. Is it masochism? Are you trying to upset people by repeating something I am pretty sure everyone in the thread has responded to elsewhere in threads where it belongs?


Note to others:

Is this actually true?!! :wink:

Still, let him bring this accusation down to earth by noting behaviors that often come into conflict over conflicting goods and we can broach the components of our respective philosophies more, say, substantively.

Really, just out of curiosity, how might I manage to bring this particular forum down?


Karpel Tunnel wrote: See above.
How can it bring things down: since you are not abusive - at least from what I have seen - can string together rational arguments. You can lock people on you. It can seem like an interactive dialogue will take place. But all discussions will end up with you repeating your assertions and focusing on what you think and what the other person's statement did or did not do FOR YOU. Rather than some other options like seeing what you are doing does to others. When you comment on this, it is always the implicit smug: I seem to make objectivists angry, uncomfortable. Not being able to imagine that there are effects and problematics ones from your behavior that have nothing to do with other people's weaknesses and your bravery for having shucked off objective values. Not being able to imagine how what makes you uncomfortable affects the dynamic and the content of your discussions and your inability to, ironically enough, see the discussions accurately from other viewpoints than your own - hence your repeated, I make you uncomfortable smugness. How convenient.


Okay, all of that may well be true. But to the best of my knowledge no one here is required to read my repetitious groots. Let alone respond to them and be made fools of.

Not unlike, for example, you? :-k
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:52 pm

Here I would need you to note what that advice actually was. That way I could comment on its applicability given the existential parameters of my own life here and now. And the extent to which I have the option to act on it with respect to conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world.
I'm not going to go rummaging through thousands of posts. It ought to be easy enough for you to remember if you took any advice offered on this forum. Since you can't I think that the answer is 'no'.
This is embedded far more in the either/or world. Many do in fact suffer from back pain. And these methods have in fact been demonstrated to be effective in relieving that pain.
Another one of your side shifts. My point was that there are reasons why people stop talking to you which have nothing to do with being uncomfortable with the philosophical contents of your posts.
What could be more discomfiting for a man or woman then to confront the question "how ought one to live?" and come to conclude this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Since you are not drawn and quartered yourself when confronting conflicting goods in a No God world, I would not expect you to grasp just how discomfiting that frame of mind can be.
I am reminded of the end of 'The Myth of Sisyphus':
I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
- Albert Camus

Note the difference between you and him.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:42 pm

phyllo wrote:
Here I would need you to note what that advice actually was. That way I could comment on its applicability given the existential parameters of my own life here and now. And the extent to which I have the option to act on it with respect to conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world.
I'm not going to go rummaging through thousands of posts. It ought to be easy enough for you to remember if you took any advice offered on this forum. Since you can't I think that the answer is 'no'.


So, we'll just have to take your word for it.

Or let's start from scratch:

Pertaining to the OP, what advice would you offer me when pointing out that the conflicting narratives being debated here are embedded in assumptions that can be construed as reasonable given a particular premise regarding the creation of rules in discussion groups of this sort?

Is there a way of "acting" so as to demonstrate the most rational argument being made?

This is embedded far more in the either/or world. Many do in fact suffer from back pain. And these methods have in fact been demonstrated to be effective in relieving that pain.


phyllo wrote: Another one of your side shifts. My point was that there are reasons why people stop talking to you which have nothing to do with being uncomfortable with the philosophical contents of your posts.


But my point is always in making a distinction between discussions that can be resolved regarding actual facts embedded in this thread, and discussions in which folks may well terminate an exchange because they do in fact feel uncomfortable confronting the possiblity that their own arguments here are just existential contraptions -- and not reflections of the optimal or the only rational conclusion.

But that's up to each participant to mull over.

What could be more discomfiting for a man or woman then to confront the question "how ought one to live?" and come to conclude this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Since you are not drawn and quartered yourself when confronting conflicting goods in a No God world, I would not expect you to grasp just how discomfiting that frame of mind can be.


phyllo wrote: I am reminded of the end of 'The Myth of Sisyphus':
I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
- Albert Camus


But that is just a myth! In reality, flesh and blood human beings actually are confronted with social, political and economic contexts/interactions in which conflicting goods are very much bombarding them.

Reactions to Trumpworld for example.

Can they be resolved philosophically?

I consider that. And here and now it seems reasonable that the manner in which I articulate my dilemma above still makes sense.

How does it not make sense to you? to others?

Again, what else is there here but to bring it down to earth? In much the manner that the OP is discussed and debated here on this thread. I merely note the distinction between those who do seem convinced that others are in fact, among other things, "idiots" for not seeing things their way, and folks like me.

No fucking dilemmas for them right?

Instead, they are able to nestle down into one or another fundamental frame of mind that sustains the sort of psychological comfort and consolation that is simply not within my reach here and now.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:57 pm

So, we'll just have to take your word for it.
We will have to, since you can't or won't say. :confusion-shrug:
But my point is always in making a distinction between discussions that can be resolved regarding actual facts embedded in this thread, and discussions in which folks may well terminate an exchange because they do in fact feel uncomfortable confronting the possiblity that their own arguments here are just existential contraptions -- and not reflections of the optimal or the only rational conclusion.
Your posts are entirely about your distinctions, your dilemma, your points and your navel lint.

You wonder why people leave.
But that is just a myth! In reality, flesh and blood human beings actually are confronted with social, political and economic contexts/interactions in which conflicting goods are very much bombarding them.
Camus was writing about his experiences and his understanding of the world. That's how writing works. Why do I need to say it?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:15 am

phyllo wrote:
I think its odd that the ones arguing most vehemently for authoritarian control are the ones stridently breaking the most rules. It's advocating for one's own punishment and, not only is that hard to understand, but it also seems not very reasonable.
:shock: If I break the rules then I ought to get penalized. That's only fair.

Yes but why is it only fair if an authority punishes you rather than your peers? Again, you don't want to be a daddy, but you claim to need one. Why?

Phyllo, you said things that you regret as if you should have been issued demerits for the errors which places you likewise in the category of having "bewildering" motivations.
I regret posts where I was manipulative and where I let my frustration get the better of my judgement.

It does appears that you are "bewildered" by my ethics, morality and motivations. The fact that I want the current forum rules to be enforced seems to be "bewildering".

It's bewildering because you are advocating for your own punishment from an authority figure. It's not bewildering because you have ethics, but it's bewildering that you would need an authority to enforce your own ethics (as if you cannot control your own self).

Again I ask: Why do the ones breaking the most rules advocate strongest for the enforcement of rules from an authority?

And the corollary is that the ones arguing against authoritarian control seem to need it least and be most-able to control themselves (ie Karpel Tunnel).
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:36 am

Yes but why is it only fair if an authority punishes you rather than your peers?
You're not advocating having any set rules or any set process. You're advocating some vague shifting "community standards" which are enforced when a mini mob descends on a poor slob and makes him feel guilty and ashamed.

I prefer a book of rules and some guys with jackboots. That way at least I know where I stand.
It's bewildering because you are advocating for your own punishment from an authority figure. It's not bewildering because you have ethics, but it's bewildering that you would need an authority to enforce your own ethics (as if you cannot control your own self).
Again I ask: Why do the ones breaking the most rules advocate strongest for the enforcement of rules from an authority?

And the corollary is that the ones arguing against authoritarian control seem to need it least and be most-able to control themselves (ie Karpel Tunnel).
Apparently you need your peers to shame you into conforming. What are you so self-righteous about?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:50 am

phyllo wrote:
Then you don't accept the rules of the game and you are playing a different game - a game where you have decided on the rules. And you have decided without the approval of the other players.

I don't want those changes. I didn't agree to those changes. I signed up with specific rules in place.

So where does that leave me in this game?


That's a good point.

So what rules do you have to have?
Why are you asking me another question? I asked for an answer from Karpel and you.

Why are you asking me another question? :confusion-shrug:

I can't answer your question until I ascertain more information from you. I have to know if those rules you have in mind would exist in nature without authority. But now that I've told you that, it's impossible for me to be assured that your answer will be innocent and objective since you're likely to seek rules that cannot exist without enforcement of authority just to undermine my reasoning because too often what is important is winning the debate; not determining what is best.

This is probably why Carleas included the rule: If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them a warning may be issued. Because all other violations apparently stem from that. A person will stop at nothing to prevent conceding defeat which is the immorality that often engenders insults et al and people dogmatically digging-in often causes reasonable people to leave, which threatens speech-maximization.

It's imperative to the functioning of the community to adhere to the ethos of fair-mindedness in debate because if cheating is rampant, then no one will decide to play and the community devolves into a monkey house. Ethics is not something that can be mandated since the unethical will always find subtle and ingenious ways around the rules and no one is perfectly ethical anyway.

There is an Alan Watts story where an emperor decided to engrave the rules on pottery so the community can know the law, but his advisers told him that's the worst thing he could do because then it will be a litigious society of those engineering ways around the law and reduce judges to inflexible machines merely dispensing prescribed justice.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:01 am

phyllo wrote:The forum rules are not being enforced so it hardly matters if those rules are replaced by new rules which are not going to be enforced.

If the rules are not enforced, then why are you here? You said you only agreed to be here if there were rules. If you say that the rules that exist are not enforced, then you've undermined your own reasoning for being here. The contract is null and void, yet you adhere to it.

If you say you were fooled, then why did it take 8 years to figure that out? Surely you have witnessed countless transgressions that were not recompensed, yet you decided to stay. How come?

How can you say that you're here only because there are rules in place, but do not leave upon noticing that the rules are not enforced? Cognitive dissonance? :confusion-shrug: What else can explain that?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:19 am

phyllo wrote:
Yes but why is it only fair if an authority punishes you rather than your peers?
You're not advocating having any set rules or any set process. You're advocating some vague shifting "community standards" which are enforced when a mini mob descends on a poor slob and makes him feel guilty and ashamed.

I guess that's one way of putting it, but I'm not arguing against having rules, but that the community should determine and enforce them. But obviously the community can't have the keys to the kingdom and an authority will have to handle violent offenders who disrupt in action. I'm not advocating a lawless anarchy per se, but more involvement of the community concerning the definition and punishment of offensiveness. Although the analogy of mob rule is succinct, it isn't quite accurate.

mini mob descends on a poor slob and makes him feel guilty and ashamed

I want to address that a bit more. Suppose you rescue a baby from a burning building and a mini mob arrives to ridicule you. Would you feel ashamed? Of course not. You would only feel ashamed if you actually did something shameful and were called-out by the mini mob.

A proverb is no proverb until life has illustrated it - keats. So you cannot feel shame until your life as illustrated how your action was shameful.

I prefer a book of rules and some guys with jackboots. That way at least I know where I stand.

Yeah, that seems reasonable and the lawyers agree ;) "Tell me the letter of the law that I may find ways around it" :evilfun:

It's bewildering because you are advocating for your own punishment from an authority figure. It's not bewildering because you have ethics, but it's bewildering that you would need an authority to enforce your own ethics (as if you cannot control your own self).
Again I ask: Why do the ones breaking the most rules advocate strongest for the enforcement of rules from an authority?

And the corollary is that the ones arguing against authoritarian control seem to need it least and be most-able to control themselves (ie Karpel Tunnel).
Apparently you need your peers to shame you into conforming.

Well, it's more the thought of my peers shaming me that prevents me from acting shamefully in the first place, so I don't need them except in my own mind.

I read on youtube:

"you're stupid!"
"do you often talk to stupid people?"
no reply.

So I think "Do I want to be the guy calling someone stupid?" No, that's stupid! "Slander is the tool of the loser", so why would I want to do that? I don't need anyone to tell me not to act like an idiot... it's just something that I intrinsically do not want to do, though I don't always succeed lol

What are you so self-righteous about?

Probably lots of stuff... unfortunately. :-? I think it's just part of existing in a duality.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:12 am

phyllo wrote:
More relevantly the 'game' of discussing philosohical ideas cannot have its rules changed over time by the people having these discussions. We simply cannot change that. In ten years ilovephilosophy must have the exact same social rules as it does now. It is physically and socially impossible to 'change games in the middle' of this long, extended set of games.
The forum rules are not being enforced so it hardly matters if those rules are replaced by new rules which are not going to be enforced.

Furthermore, you don't have a problem with breaking the written rules, so really the only rules in effect would those that "the community" gets together on at any moment. These "rules" (for lack of a better word) are going to be vague and undefined. Right?

Since there are only about 20 active members here, in practice the shaming would be done by two or three people.
Probably, just as they are being done in workplaces, social groups, hobby groups, organizations. However if the larger group dislikes what the smaller group is doing, if they, for example disagree and think that this is just bullying, they will hopefully come to the defense of that person, or raise the idea that it is more complex. I think you refer to this as a minimob somewhere. Which it certainly could be and for anyone who thinks that the forum social rules are wrong, the liklihood increases that they will think that they will think it is a mob, rather than representatives relaying that behaviors X are disliked by the group. And yes, this can evolve over time. As far as them being vague and undefined, I think they may be more complex than the current list. They will likely allow for more nuance and exceptions. IOW I would guess that the occasional insult would be accepted. Instead of a commandment based list, you would have more of a consequentialist evaluation. Thou shalt not X, replaced by situation based analyses - even if these are often done intuitively.

It may seem like the groups you are in do not use shaming and you do not use shaming or approve of shaming, but in my varied and long life I have not encountered any group that did not punish bad behavior through actions and words which cause shame. These include subtler stuff, like judging but not saying it, being distant and treating other people with warmth. Personally I find that more unpleasant than a blame filled confrontation where issues are aired and I can clearly see what is bothering people about me. Others may have different tastes, but both extremes can and do cause shame.

We can let daddy do everything. Carleas can decide what the infractions are, look at it in a rule based way, ban a couple of people a decade and ignore the commandments. I think this has contributed to low standards of interaction. There is a lot of not really responding to people's points and other rudenesses that if turned into infractions would put an incredible burden on Carleas, since he would have to go into these discussions and do some analysis. Not fair to him. Demeaning to us to demand/expect a parental role for something we can do ourselves. As it is we have a lot of solipsistic posts made by people who cannot really interact with the ideas of others and really, have no reason to think they need to. Philosophy as expressing opinions. The rephrasing these. I ambiguous could practically be a bot or terribly weak AI, one that questionably passes a Turing test.

It puts a lot of responsibility on members. They probably need to refrain from feeding subtle trolls and the more easy to notice right off kind. They need to demand better responses.

It might not even work. But it is not working now.

I notice that Prismatic is getting precisely this kind of feedback. People have moved from shaming to shunning, formally ending interaction. The problem is, I know it myself, it is easy to get redrawn back in, perhaps before the person moves away. I don't think any feedback will set Iambiguous in motion to another forum (or change the way he posts.) He seems to content to talk to the ether in a number of his threads. But still, it would be interesting to see what would happen if more people took to shaming, then shunning. Waht would the quality be like in the remaining interactions. Would a kind of forum culture become clearer. Would the loss of frustration dealing with solipsistic posters, lead to a more open dialogue between the others, where people concede points, explore, are honest when they realize they still disagree but the other person made a good point they have no riposte for (yet, perhaps) and so on. My guess is that there would beo some improvement but nothing grand. But hey, we could see and a little improvement would be something.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:01 pm

If the rules are not enforced, then why are you here? You said you only agreed to be here if there were rules. If you say that the rules that exist are not enforced, then you've undermined your own reasoning for being here. The contract is null and void, yet you adhere to it.

If you say you were fooled, then why did it take 8 years to figure that out? Surely you have witnessed countless transgressions that were not recompensed, yet you decided to stay. How come?

How can you say that you're here only because there are rules in place, but do not leave upon noticing that the rules are not enforced? Cognitive dissonance? :confusion-shrug: What else can explain that?
That would make sense if the only reason (or main reason) to be in a philosophy forum was to engage in the enforcement of rules. Since it's not, my answer seems to be obvious.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:17 pm

I can't answer your question until I ascertain more information from you. I have to know if those rules you have in mind would exist in nature without authority.
What???
But now that I've told you that, it's impossible for me to be assured that your answer will be innocent and objective since you're likely to seek rules that cannot exist without enforcement of authority just to undermine my reasoning because too often what is important is winning the debate; not determining what is best.
Yeah, I might do that if I knew what the hell you were talking about. LOL.

My question was asking what happens to the person who disagrees with you guys.

There is no process proposed for deciding on the rules and no reason to think that you will treat any fixed set of rules as binding.

Basically this system of shaming would just "start up".

One or two or three of you will start shaming someone based on your "personal standards". Then a person who disagrees has the choice of ignoring it, getting into an argument with you about the "standard" or leaving the forum.

None of which are appealing.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:38 pm

I guess that's one way of putting it, but I'm not arguing against having rules, but that the community should determine and enforce them.
As I just wrote, there is no process for selecting the rules. Are you proposing a vote?

How many members really want to be part of the enforcement?
I want to address that a bit more. Suppose you rescue a baby from a burning building and a mini mob arrives to ridicule you. Would you feel ashamed? Of course not. You would only feel ashamed if you actually did something shameful and were called-out by the mini mob.
That sounds good in theory but in practice people are made to feel shame when they have no reason to.
The process of being shamed is unpleasant even when you have no reason to feel shame.

Then if you don't feel shame, you are shunned. #-o

These are unfortunate and real aspects of shaming and shunning.

You make it seem as if only 'the guilty" would suffer shaming and shunning.

You rescue a Jewish baby and you are ridiculed by the Nazi mob. :confusion-shrug:
So I think "Do I want to be the guy calling someone stupid?" No, that's stupid! "Slander is the tool of the loser", so why would I want to do that? I don't need anyone to tell me not to act like an idiot... it's just something that I intrinsically do not want to do, though I don't always succeed lol
That's a simplistic example. You see yourself as agreeing with the rightness of the shaming.
But what if you don't agree. What if you are pressured to act in a way which you don't want to act? Then you are up against the mob. Are you sure that you are not going to cave in to them? If you don't cave then you're shunned.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:18 pm

Probably, just as they are being done in workplaces, social groups, hobby groups, organizations. However if the larger group dislikes what the smaller group is doing, if they, for example disagree and think that this is just bullying, they will hopefully come to the defense of that person, or raise the idea that it is more complex. I think you refer to this as a minimob somewhere. Which it certainly could be and for anyone who thinks that the forum social rules are wrong, the liklihood increases that they will think that they will think it is a mob, rather than representatives relaying that behaviors X are disliked by the group. And yes, this can evolve over time. As far as them being vague and undefined, I think they may be more complex than the current list. They will likely allow for more nuance and exceptions. IOW I would guess that the occasional insult would be accepted. Instead of a commandment based list, you would have more of a consequentialist evaluation. Thou shalt not X, replaced by situation based analyses - even if these are often done intuitively.
Thanks for that explanation.
It may seem like the groups you are in do not use shaming and you do not use shaming or approve of shaming, but in my varied and long life I have not encountered any group that did not punish bad behavior through actions and words which cause shame. These include subtler stuff, like judging but not saying it, being distant and treating other people with warmth. Personally I find that more unpleasant than a blame filled confrontation where issues are aired and I can clearly see what is bothering people about me. Others may have different tastes, but both extremes can and do cause shame.
I think that you are pulling a lot of normal social interaction under that category of shame/shaming.
For example, I didn't stop talking to Prismatic because I'm shaming or shunning him, I stopped talking to him because he has not said anything new for weeks. I have already responded many times to his "general problem solving method", his "psychological angst" and his definition of "perfection". I'm bored and uninterested now. But that's not a punishment.
There is a lot of not really responding to people's points
I don't think it's realistic to try to punish this. I have been accused of that exact "failing" and I can produce a list of reasons why those accusations are BS. Of course, some days I'm in a bad mood, or frustrated or distracted by other concerns ... so I was probably a rude prick some of the time. :evilfun:

:-k Iambig is constantly saying that I'm not responding to his points. :lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:41 pm

"not responding to a person's point"

When I feel that someone is not responding to my points, I usually think that either I have not expressed myself clearly or the other person does not understood my point. Either way, I'm basically talking Swahili to him/her.

There are instances when he will call me a "libtard" or "Randian thug" or something similar and just refuse to respond to the points. Ironically I'm accused of having both extreme right wing and extreme left wing views. :lol:
Last edited by phyllo on Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:45 pm

phyllo wrote:"not responding to a person's point"

When I feel that someone is not responding to my points, I usually think that either I have not expressed myself clearly or the other person does not understood my point. Either way, I'm basically talking Swahili to him/her.

There are instances when he will call me a "libtard" or "Randian thug" or something similar and just refuse to respond to the points. Ironically I'm accused of having both extreme right wing and extreme left wing views. :lol:

Sure, any instance of not responding to a point is just that, and instance. We all miss points, we all misunderstand, writers responsible also as well as readers for these instances. But patterns are another thing. Intelligence can be a factor, but one can also see patterns of willful avoidance, strawmen use and clear patterns of not reading not just one's own posts but those of others.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:51 pm

Intelligence can be a factor, but one can also see patterns of willful avoidance, strawmen use and clear patterns of not reading not just one's own posts but those of others.
That could have been my ego talking in the previous post.

Maybe he just thinks that my point is so stupid that it does not merit a response. :lol:

And maybe he's right. :-k
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:19 pm

phyllo wrote:
But my point is always in making a distinction between discussions that can be resolved regarding actual facts embedded in this thread, and discussions in which folks may well terminate an exchange because they do in fact feel uncomfortable confronting the possiblity that their own arguments here are just existential contraptions -- and not reflections of the optimal or the only rational conclusion.

Your posts are entirely about your distinctions, your dilemma, your points and your navel lint.


Ah, reduced to retorting again.

phyllo wrote: You wonder why people leave.


No, I merely speculate that to the extent some come to grasp what I construe to be the profound limitations of philosophy in probing the question "how ought one to live?", they may well be inclined toward other less problematic pursuits.

phyllo wrote: Camus was writing about his experiences and his understanding of the world. That's how writing works. Why do I need to say it?


Okay, but how do we write about human interactions in what some construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningless world?
One that ends for all of eternity in oblivion? And, as well, in what Camus and others deemed to be a No God world.

I've come up with "dasein, conflicting goods and political economy". Culminating for me in a "dilemma" that seems perfectly reasonable when broaching the is/ought world.

I can then only invite you and others to react to this. To allow folks to explain why that is not the manner in which they react to it.

As that might be construed applicable to the discussions being generated on this thread.

Is there a way to roll that particular boulder up the hill such that it does not roll back down again and again and again and again.

It doesn't seem that it can be done to me. But then I'm not an objectivist.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:54 pm

Okay, but how do we write about human interactions in what some construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningless world?
One that ends for all of eternity in oblivion? And, as well, in what Camus and others deemed to be a No God world.
Who is "we"?

Camus was writing about that absurd and meaningless world and yet he found personal meaning and happiness there - without God and with oblivion.

Why is he not a reasonable example for you to follow?

And other philosophers have managed to handle no God and oblivion - Epicureans for example.

Stoics had God and oblivion.

So what the hell is wrong with those philosophies beyond "I'm not convinced"? Why aren't you convinced?

Seems like you have a cornucopia of options. You dismiss everything as an "intellectual contraption" and then you have nothing in a world rich with possibilities.

Bah, humbug.

Oblivion tomorrow but alive today.

A speck of dust in a universe which would not exist without the dust that forms it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users