Ideally, we would simply share ideas and reply with our thoughts and concerns about the ideas presented.

Yes but in hopes of the other person where does it get him/her? Yes now they have more knowledge but rarely to change their overall view and mindset.

practice what you preach!

All depends on how the other person responds. You're right - when confronted with information that seems to discredit dearly held views, people become defensive and close themselves off to information. It's a shame. I would suggest that people not cling so tightly to their views - chances are, we're wrong, at least to some extent, when we make a claim.

Well, I haven't read every thread on this forum, but I don't think I've seen any ad hominem attacks so that's always good.

I'm glad you haven't encountered any, Victor, but they are hanging around. The mod team tries to deal with them when we find them.

This is a post from another blog that've found helpfull, guidelines on how to conduct a mannerly debate.

I don't know about that victor... I've seen some ad hominem attacks from a good while back. But usually when you scratch at frustrations it is when the offensive begins.

But discourse seems inextricably connected to some degree of malevolence. That seems to be the natural feature of rhetorical debate, not abstract discourse which seems in the best interests of philosophy. I seldom see an argument separate abstract discourse from personal feelings.

But even still, look at most Platonic dialogs and see how Socratic reasonings turn out. Usually, they turn out awkward to say the least. Look at Euthyphro for example. The conversation starts out nice and fine, but ego and personal bias drive him away before Socrates gets his answers. Even in an ideal text, the conversation never turns out to the benefit of both parties.

You can probably thank one Mr. Nietzsche for that. You got otherwise good philosophers, like Robert C. Solomon, defending his ad hominem as "inextricably tied to his philosophical style".


Nietzsche.... what a yutz

I think the object of that line of argumentation is entirely different; although the intention to that line of argumentation may differ from person to person.

My personal intent is to make sure that it is not the conclusion (the predication, the thought-object) which is important. I may be wrong, the encyclopedia may be wrong and even more importantly: any conclusion (predication, thought-object) is always one locked in space and time and with the changing of space and time the conclusion (predication, thought-object) will change.

Because of this the only important issue at hand is the method one uses to deduce truth (a true conclusion, predication, thought-object); not the statement of such a deduced conclusion (predication, thought-object). In fact: such statements are the only statements making no sense at all because one would necessarily need to deduce the method which was used for the formulation of that particular conclusion (predication, thought-object).

I know peoples intentions usually are 'good' when stating 'facts' (conclusions, predications, thought-objects) though. So I, in no way, mean any disrespect to anybody who behaves in such a manner. I am merely trying to say that it makes no sense at all to make a statement wihout noting the standing in space and time. Both are needed to understand the full meaning of any conclusion (predication, thought-object). The reason for this is because you hold those two against your own personal method for deducing truth (a true conclusion, predication, thought-object). Therefore any 'faulty' conclusion (predication, thought-object) is due to a faulty reasoning (a 'faulty' method). Any correct, but alien conclusion (predication, thought-object) is due to standing.

In my opinion we use three things in any reasoning:

- Method
- Standing
- The conclusion (predication, thought-object)

The importance of the three being in just the order I placed them in. The reason for this is because there is only one method that facilitates true conclusions (predications, thought-objects), there are an infinite number of standing and for each standing are infinite amounts of conclusions, predications, thought-objects).

I hope this helps.

This is good link to an outline about Socratic dialog.

Socratic Dialog

I think this is often typical in religious dialogue--or more appropriately dueling polemics. Religion by nature to most people is absolute due to the seeming absurdity caused by apposing religious viewpoints. If one believes something to be true and absolutely unquestionable good luck changing their minds. This seems to also happen in political discourse as well. But then modern politics is not much different than modern religion. These topics tend to polarize conversation. On the other hand, philosophical discussions on aesthetics, epistemology, and social philosophy tend to avoid this problem due to the nature of the subject material.