Thank you Sparhafoc for that elaboration.
Ok, so that's another misunderstanding. I thought, based on some of the language that you indeed did. No worries.
Ah ok, that clarifies things. So I saw some of your comments as being judgemental and intellectually unfair, hence my later comment about charity. I thought, based on my perception of your understanding of what I had been saying (in retrospect caused by my misreading of your posts) that you were basically writing me off and falling back of ad hominem-sort of 'tactics' you might say, albeit subtle. I thought you were basically dismissing me without giving me a chance, hence why I later emphasized psikhrangkur and thanked him for 'giving me a fair shake.' So I indeed did resort to as you would say 'debate tactics' because I felt I was being unfairly forced into that via a lack of charity. Now I recognize at this point the counterpoints you were trying to bring to the table. But because I misread you, I didn't see you in that light, but I can understand your perspective at this point.
Ok, I'm not familiar with formal debate settings and tactics, but moreso with how people redirect focus away from the issues and onto the person. There are certain tactics that I don't think are appropriate even in a 'discussion' except among friends who know each other very well and are just messing around of course and breaking balls.
Ok I see. Yeah, see I wasn't looking at it like that even though I was employing what you called 'debate tactics.' Rather, I thought you were unfairly dismissing me.
The funny thing is I asked a buddy, the one who had invited me to come here, as to what I should do because from my perspective you guys were not getting what I was saying. He told me that maybe listing the fallacies I saw would help. He was trying to help as was I, so I was very surprised to hear about this 'fallacy game.'
Oh sure, fair enough. I take no issue.
Ok,.
Oh ok, I understand. Yeah, I didn't know what that meant. Over the internet on top of everything else, one person's humor can be perceived totally differently, especially if one doesn't follow what is actually being said.
That in itself is an interesting discussion to me, as I take much issue with the representationalist model of the mind, and I think the nuances of that discussion certainly have epistemic implications.
Ok, I appreciate, thanks.
I actually am quite brutally honest, but I also try to question my own judgements sometimes, least by be hypocritical, as misunderstandings are of course a thing. But I do certainly share the sentiment about not tiptoeing around, its just I think sometimes there are reasons to give people the benefit of the doubt, or, if not that, then at least what is fair.
lol ok, I think I'm starting to see a glimmer of your brand of humor. I think there really may be a bit of a disconnect here, not sure if its personality-related or cultural or what have you.
Ok right. Also, on that note, I felt you and the others were unfairly accusing me of being hypocritical with respect to Monistic's behavior and that I was acting like he was, which I see as totally false. But I can see the disconnect more clearly now as to how I may have been coming off.
As am I, or I should so more accurately, my women is quite assured. That's just my way of saying I prefer ciliziled but also friendly discussion.
And by the way, I don't mind if you want to intellectually grill me on my arguments. Not at all, I just don't like things to get personal, just so we are clear, but I do realize that sometimes things aren't so serious in other people's minds.
I totally hear you on this, and also find that far more preferable than said circle jerk of compliments. With that said, rehortically speaking, "would you like to play a nice game of chess?"
Ok, so on the teleology subject.
If you wouldn't mind, could you recapitulate what you think is the central idea I'm trying to push here, and how you think it fails or is problematic more generally? I see how the acorn analogy has failed to be a universal representation of the idea I think Aristotle is driving at, but I don't think the idea has no merrit. One word on stubbornness btw. I want to be clear, that sometimes I can appear to be stubborn, but understand that this is me 'sticking to my guns' so as not to abandon a point prematurely when I do not see clear refutation present. Also, I do find value at times with repeating myself. It isn't that, of course, I want to be intentionally obtuse or ignore other people, but when I think the point isn't being seen, I have seen in the past that this can be fruitful. So everyone else understands, a friend of mine and I whom I have much respect for intellectually at times would stubbornly cling to points, almost to the point where at times I would consider this absolutely ridiculous and question what I was doing, only to be surprised that it turned out one of us misunderstood, or both of us did as something which was previously unseen was unconcealed. I see it like butting heads to the point where a new idea comes loose. But again, all of that is more of a method to advance the discussion, though it might seem like being intentionally obtuse.
Sparhafoc said:Ok, sure.
For clarity, from my perspective I took no offense or anything at all from the 'you misunderstand' or anything like that. At no point was I provoked, or insulted, or agitated or any other emotional reaction.
Ok, so that's another misunderstanding. I thought, based on some of the language that you indeed did. No worries.
Sparhafoc said:What I took exception to was imposing, without real justification, the rules and tactics of a debate format such as appealing to fallacies, or using language that apparently strategically demotes other peoples' responses to being a misunderstanding on their part.
Debates work very differently to discussions.
Discussions are about consensus, finding pathways towards a shared outcome of understanding.
Debates are about beating people in a match.
Ah ok, that clarifies things. So I saw some of your comments as being judgemental and intellectually unfair, hence my later comment about charity. I thought, based on my perception of your understanding of what I had been saying (in retrospect caused by my misreading of your posts) that you were basically writing me off and falling back of ad hominem-sort of 'tactics' you might say, albeit subtle. I thought you were basically dismissing me without giving me a chance, hence why I later emphasized psikhrangkur and thanked him for 'giving me a fair shake.' So I indeed did resort to as you would say 'debate tactics' because I felt I was being unfairly forced into that via a lack of charity. Now I recognize at this point the counterpoints you were trying to bring to the table. But because I misread you, I didn't see you in that light, but I can understand your perspective at this point.
Sparhafoc said:The language you took to be personal (even though it wasn't actually very personal at all) was my response to your apparent attempt to employ the rules and remit of a debate style exchange, and part of that is putting your interlocutor off their game.
If it was a debate, then me forcing you to repeatedly defend yourself or talk about what you like or don't like means I am scoring points. From the perspective of a debate, you started losing ground at that point, and it wasn't by accident. I even alluded to this via Goldenmane's 3rd Rule, and there are endless numbers of treatises on tactical responses in debate scenarios in terms of counter-punching, and defeating certain styles or tones through employing other strategies. I opted for these.
Ok, I'm not familiar with formal debate settings and tactics, but moreso with how people redirect focus away from the issues and onto the person. There are certain tactics that I don't think are appropriate even in a 'discussion' except among friends who know each other very well and are just messing around of course and breaking balls.
Sparhafoc said:However, I had previously said that I don't need to go into debate mode, and I was asking you to acknowledge that we were at an impasse, where the proposition you'd offered was genuinely untenable for me for the reasons I'd given. There we could have gone more towards discussion, but as you opted for your litany of fallacies approach, which I saw as a debate strategy (because it is), a rhetorical tactic employed to start scoring points, and particularly when you then failed to produce any example of alleged fallacies on my part, so I joined in 'the game'.
Ok I see. Yeah, see I wasn't looking at it like that even though I was employing what you called 'debate tactics.' Rather, I thought you were unfairly dismissing me.
Sparhafoc said:If it's just a discussion, then I am happy to be there looking to see what comes out. If you identify a flaw in reasoning, it's not a label of a fallacy that matters, it's exposition about what the problem such reasoning induces.
The funny thing is I asked a buddy, the one who had invited me to come here, as to what I should do because from my perspective you guys were not getting what I was saying. He told me that maybe listing the fallacies I saw would help. He was trying to help as was I, so I was very surprised to hear about this 'fallacy game.'
Sparhafoc said:Finally, I do also always take umbrage to being collectivized with other people who may just happen to share a single opinion with me; I take pains to ensure I expound my ideas clearly and think it only elementary civility to have my ideas addressed directly, not by proxy. I can accept if this was done in an innocent manner on your part, but I always take steps to nip off such notions before they can bloom, again because it's useful to a debating interlocutor to repaint scenarios to suit their own argument, thus I wouldn't allow that to occur uncontested.
Oh sure, fair enough. I take no issue.
Sparhafoc said:So in summary, while I may have made you feel uncomfortable, it wasn't done in a gratifying or excessive way, it was done very carefully for a very particular reason. Don't mistake me - I am a bit of a cunt when it comes to arguing the toss, but I am perfectly capable of civilized discussion assuming that's matched by the other side. Although I will note that even in a professional, academic setting, nothing I said was anywhere near as robust an exchange as you might become used to.
Ok,.
Sparhafoc said:I won't accept your apology because there's nothing you need to apologize for. All fair do's to me!
I will acknowledge a mea culpa though. I have a tendency towards reductio ad absurdum - it just always hits the right spot for me. A 2 word rebuttal often provides a note of humour too, at least for my sense of humour anyway, and I could easily have expanded more on why this example jellyfish caused problems with that analogy to Biology, and I admit I do like making people work a little too sometimes! :lol:
Oh ok, I understand. Yeah, I didn't know what that meant. Over the internet on top of everything else, one person's humor can be perceived totally differently, especially if one doesn't follow what is actually being said.
Sparhafoc said:I genuinely think one needs to consider what it is one is quantifying. Are we quantifying something that exists, or are we expressing a quantity of the way we think about how something exists? For me, this is much of philosophy. Are we discussing the thing itself, or are we discussing the cognitive model of the thing. Thus my repeated references to spherical cows in vacuums.
That in itself is an interesting discussion to me, as I take much issue with the representationalist model of the mind, and I think the nuances of that discussion certainly have epistemic implications.
Sparhafoc said:I expect my style of discourse doesn't play well into that either. It will be hard for me to change because, I have to be honest, a large part of the reason I am on a discussion forum in the first place is that I live in a country where I rarely get to use my native language, and I positively revel in expressing myself in ways I find amusing. I would suggest that when you find something I say confusing, just ask for clarification because it appears that some of my abstract interjections are somewhat opaque when it comes to interpreting their intent. I can't say I won't write in a confusing way (when it's fun to write like that) but I promise I'll always unpack and expand if requested.
Ok, I appreciate, thanks.
Sparhafoc said:Honestly, at least when it comes to me, I don't care if you are personal - it's water off a duck's back for me. I've been grilled, roasted, hung-out-to-dry, belittled, scorned, and generally abused so many times that I barely even read such language (unless it's nicely written) to never worry about it. I'd rather you succinctly called me a bloody idiot when it's justified than spend eighteen hundred words carefully stepping round that brutal honesty.
I actually am quite brutally honest, but I also try to question my own judgements sometimes, least by be hypocritical, as misunderstandings are of course a thing. But I do certainly share the sentiment about not tiptoeing around, its just I think sometimes there are reasons to give people the benefit of the doubt, or, if not that, then at least what is fair.
Sparhafoc said:It's ok, I possess sufficient hubris to assume that when I don't understand you, it's because you're not being comprehensible rather than me being dopey!
Not always true, I know when I am being dopey, but I think you can see what I mean about enjoying writing things for fun!
lol ok, I think I'm starting to see a glimmer of your brand of humor. I think there really may be a bit of a disconnect here, not sure if its personality-related or cultural or what have you.
Sparhafoc said:All I can say Exogen is that you'd have to work bloody hard to cause me offense - I'm a robust enough chap to take a bit of back and forth. The only time I'd abandon a discussion is when the interlocutor proves so intractable, obnoxious, and self-pleasuring that partaking further seems to be an exercise only in feeding their ego.
Ok right. Also, on that note, I felt you and the others were unfairly accusing me of being hypocritical with respect to Monistic's behavior and that I was acting like he was, which I see as totally false. But I can see the disconnect more clearly now as to how I may have been coming off.
Sparhafoc said:Pfff you guys measure away; I'm quietly comfortable and assured with my e-penile length!
As am I, or I should so more accurately, my women is quite assured. That's just my way of saying I prefer ciliziled but also friendly discussion.
And by the way, I don't mind if you want to intellectually grill me on my arguments. Not at all, I just don't like things to get personal, just so we are clear, but I do realize that sometimes things aren't so serious in other people's minds.
Sparhafoc said:Of course I am. Branch accepted and hands vigorously shaken. As much as I take no offense, I don't really mean it either. For me, the tussle can be fun too - not in a trolling way; I'm not looking to upset people - but a frank, robust exchange of ideas is better, in my opinion, than a pleasurable circle-jerk of compliments.
I totally hear you on this, and also find that far more preferable than said circle jerk of compliments. With that said, rehortically speaking, "would you like to play a nice game of chess?"
Ok, so on the teleology subject.
If you wouldn't mind, could you recapitulate what you think is the central idea I'm trying to push here, and how you think it fails or is problematic more generally? I see how the acorn analogy has failed to be a universal representation of the idea I think Aristotle is driving at, but I don't think the idea has no merrit. One word on stubbornness btw. I want to be clear, that sometimes I can appear to be stubborn, but understand that this is me 'sticking to my guns' so as not to abandon a point prematurely when I do not see clear refutation present. Also, I do find value at times with repeating myself. It isn't that, of course, I want to be intentionally obtuse or ignore other people, but when I think the point isn't being seen, I have seen in the past that this can be fruitful. So everyone else understands, a friend of mine and I whom I have much respect for intellectually at times would stubbornly cling to points, almost to the point where at times I would consider this absolutely ridiculous and question what I was doing, only to be surprised that it turned out one of us misunderstood, or both of us did as something which was previously unseen was unconcealed. I see it like butting heads to the point where a new idea comes loose. But again, all of that is more of a method to advance the discussion, though it might seem like being intentionally obtuse.