tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post114854810553223828..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: On Civility and PolemicRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148607639953530632006-05-25T21:40:00.000-04:002006-05-25T21:40:00.000-04:00Yeah, actually, I gave it some more thought overni...Yeah, actually, I gave it some more thought overnight and came to similar conclusions. I'll write a follow-up soon.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148587279612882992006-05-25T16:01:00.000-04:002006-05-25T16:01:00.000-04:001) Generally mocking gives an impression not of ca...1) Generally mocking gives an impression not of careful punishment for wrong thinking but instead excessive arrogance and a self centred desire to build oneself up.<BR/><BR/>2) Mocking is what I would term a negative strategy. You try to cause harm to the other side in order to make them provide more benefit to your aims. This undermines the benefit of debate. <BR/>Almost by definition one thinks their own arguments are good and the others sides are various degrees of mock worthy (and everyone is at least a little mistaken). I would suggest that applying a principle that makes it legitimate floods debate with negative strategies is a problem (unless, maybe, they are in response to other negative strategies). <BR/><BR/>3) at an empirical level I think not having the strategy is better (at least from experience).<BR/><BR/>4) One of the most important things I think is that it is possible to engage with the argument (as you see it) but not with the person's mind. I.e. to either attack a position you think is relevant but isn't, or to debate with hidden assumptions the other side doesn’t hold.<BR/>If you don’t engage with their mind and particularly if you do it with mockery you close options for debate and create options for conflict. One would hope one would be honest about their intentions to use negative strategies.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148582833724378992006-05-25T14:47:00.000-04:002006-05-25T14:47:00.000-04:00"You engage seriously with the view whilst making ..."You engage seriously with the view whilst making it clear that you don't take it seriously. You mock it mercilessly, but in the context of a substantive argument which establishes fairly and reasonably why it deserves to be so mocked. "<BR/><BR/>I'm not entirely clear about what you think the criteria should be for a position or argument to be mock-worthy. It has to be ridiculous, I take it, but that ends up being kind of circular. If your goal is just to mock somebody, then I suppose it's fine. If your goal is to mock somebody in order to show off for others who think it is just as ridiculous as you think it is, then mock away, I say. But if you are trying to convince somebody of that the position is false, mocking that position can hurt you, I think. For me, at least, if I'm watching (or reading) to people argue their respective positions and one is mocking the other and the other is being quite civil, I tend to be more sympathetic to the person who is being civil. <BR/><BR/>Mocking seems to only add entertainment value for people who already agree with you. But it is going to backfire on you for anybody who disagrees with you or hasn't made up their minds.Machthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04496087495904724449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148574742029882902006-05-25T12:32:00.000-04:002006-05-25T12:32:00.000-04:00Color me more in favor of more dispassionate dialo...Color me more in favor of more dispassionate dialog.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148573643632791562006-05-25T12:14:00.000-04:002006-05-25T12:14:00.000-04:00"the limited scope of legitimate ridicule" well-s..."the limited scope of legitimate ridicule" well-said.<BR/><BR/>One of the problems that is here is that our contemporary discourse is far from rational. I have critical thinking students ask me every semester what to do when the other person refuses to engage in rational discussion. suppose you have clearly pointed out and explained a fallacy, given a well-supported argument to the contrary and the person simply refuses to engage you or worse, screams obscenities? My usual response is that you just don't try to talk to those people. but what happens when those folks control the discourse? At that pont, it seems as if we may be in a rhetorical state of nature. i hate that thought and want to be talked out of it.SteveGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340421785402103210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148564248332285072006-05-25T09:37:00.000-04:002006-05-25T09:37:00.000-04:00Another thing I should clarify is the limited scop...Another thing I should clarify is the limited scope of legitimate ridicule. It's never appropriate to mock someone on the basis of some innocuous or irrelevant characteristic (say for being fat or ugly). Rather, one should restrict one's focus to what's really blameworthy about them, i.e. their holding of pernicious positions for flimsy reasons. It's reasonable to draw attention to just how shockingly bad their arguments are. It's not reasonable to mock them on extraneous grounds. (Amanda makes a similar point in her linked post.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148559604263844382006-05-25T08:20:00.000-04:002006-05-25T08:20:00.000-04:00No, the requirements of intellectual honesty are a...No, the requirements of intellectual honesty are as strong as ever. You're not allowed to lie or misrepresent the other's position merely in order to make them look bad (no matter whether you think this might have good consequences). And you'd want to avoid intellectual "bullying" and other unreasonable behaviour. I simply mean to suggest that strong criticism should not be considered out of bounds. Restraint will often still be called for. So it may be a little misleading for me to endorse "merciless mocking" -- that's certainly subject to all sorts of qualifications. I guess a lot will depend on the specifics of the situation, hence my point about the need for "discernment". Alas, that detracts from the crispness and clarity of the original post. Damn complications.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1148557935552615782006-05-25T07:52:00.000-04:002006-05-25T07:52:00.000-04:00Aren't you applying "naive utilitarianism" to legi...Aren't you applying "naive utilitarianism" to legitimate debating? (of all places to apply it!)<BR/><BR/>I have lot's of thoughts - but I'm trying to be tactful.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.com