Anyone else hate philosophical discussions?

[EMP]

Watching the "living off others' work" thread explode, has just reminded me of how much I despise philosophical debate.  I try to focus on the workable over the ideal in my own life, and try not to get bogged down in the "fairness" (or lack thereof) of it all. 

Just for fun, you can include your age.  I'm 33 and FWIW I try to be a decent person without overthinking it. 

[BPA]

This is in and of itself an invitation to a philosophical discussion.  ;)

[arebelspy]

Not at all.  I just joined a group for philosophical discussions.  I haven't had much high level thought in my life in years, and had some discussions the other night that kept me up and I'm still turning over in my mind a few days later.  That hasn't happened to me in a long, long time.

[BPA]

I like hanging out with people who think even if they think differently than I do.  In fact, I would much rather have a conversation with a thinker whose political beliefs are the opposite of mine than a conversation with someone who shares my beliefs but hasn't a really clear idea of why.  Of course, I think my political views are the right ones (who doesn't think their own are?), but do appreciate different perspectives and don't think people are "bad" because they don't think like I do.

I am 44.

[EMP]

I'm not opposed to thinking.  I guess it's more the rhetoric that makes my eyes glaze over.  And then with the strawman arguments and the blah blah blah.  Seriously only worthwhile if 1.  you're intoxicated or 2. you're talking with someone that is actually open to the exchange of ideas.  #2 if vanishingly rare in my experience. 

This is in and of itself an invitation to a philosophical discussion.  ;)

I had recognized the irony, but thanks for pointing it out right off the bat.  Way to keep things from getting too far in the wrong (deep, possibly meaningful) direction. ;)

[marty998]

Yeah I hate it too, because everyone is convinced they are right and it's generally just way too difficult to prove otherwise.

It always seems to break down over "black & white" vs "shades of grey" type things.

I find that it is very difficult to talk to Arts degree graduates because of this. They are generally very headstrong with their own opinions.

I'm 26.

[chicagomeg]

I hate them SO MUCH.

[spider1204]

Yes, I enjoy them with the right kind of people, and to a certain degree of depth.  I find that the more I think about something the more I know, until I get deep enough that I either hit the skeptic concept of not being able to know anything at all, or the idea of determinism.  So, I end up hating philosophical discussions with most people, and then also hate it when I hit one of these points as well.

[arebelspy]

I guess it's more the rhetoric that makes my eyes glaze over.  And then with the strawman arguments and the blah blah blah.

Yeah I hate it too, because everyone is convinced they are right and it's generally just way too difficult to prove otherwise.

You guys are doing it wrong.  A philosophical discussion is an opportunity to learn, not to teach, not to win.  If the people you are talking to are as described in those two quotes, they aren't having a philosophical discussion.  At best, they're arguing.

Find some deeper thinkers for some high level discussions.  You'll be fulfilled, rather than frustrated.

[Kriegsspiel]

It always seems to break down over "black & white" vs "shades of grey" type things.

Would you say 50?  50 shades?

[EMP]

I guess it's more the rhetoric that makes my eyes glaze over.  And then with the strawman arguments and the blah blah blah.

Yeah I hate it too, because everyone is convinced they are right and it's generally just way too difficult to prove otherwise.

You guys are doing it wrong.  A philosophical discussion is an opportunity to learn, not to teach, not to win.  If the people you are talking to are as described in those two quotes, they aren't having a philosophical discussion.  At best, they're arguing.

Find some deeper thinkers for some high level discussions.  You'll be fulfilled, rather than frustrated.

I guess I'm really thinking of what passes for philosophical debate these days rather than the real deal.  I guess we can thank talk radio for that?   

[BPA]

I had recognized the irony, but thanks for pointing it out right off the bat.  Way to keep things from getting too far in the wrong (deep, possibly meaningful) direction. ;)

lol  I'm glad you have a sense of humour and didn't think I was too much of a shit disturber. 



I have a liberal arts education and will consider other points of view, but I'm not 26.  I wonder if "experience" makes a difference.  And by "experience" what I guess I really mean is being old enough to be the mother of someone who is 26.  <cries on keyboard>

[EMP]

I had recognized the irony, but thanks for pointing it out right off the bat.  Way to keep things from getting too far in the wrong (deep, possibly meaningful) direction. ;)

lol  I'm glad you have a sense of humour and didn't think I was too much of a shit disturber. 



I have a liberal arts education and will consider other points of view, but I'm not 26.  I wonder if "experience" makes a difference.  And by "experience" what I guess I really mean is being old enough to be the mother of someone who is 26.  <cries on keyboard>

I asked b/c I find Boomers to be the worst perpetrators.  Gen X seems to lean more towards the practical.

[BPA]

I had recognized the irony, but thanks for pointing it out right off the bat.  Way to keep things from getting too far in the wrong (deep, possibly meaningful) direction. ;)

lol  I'm glad you have a sense of humour and didn't think I was too much of a shit disturber. 



I have a liberal arts education and will consider other points of view, but I'm not 26.  I wonder if "experience" makes a difference.  And by "experience" what I guess I really mean is being old enough to be the mother of someone who is 26.  <cries on keyboard>

I asked b/c I find Boomers to be the worst perpetrators.  Gen X seems to lean more towards the practical.

Gasp!  Don't call me a Boomer!  I was born in 1968.  :P  (And I'm laughing because technically my ex-husband was a Boomer and I teased him about it all of the time much to his chagrin.  This would be my poetic justice.)

[matchewed]

I think we're conflating philosophical discussions with debate. I think philosophical discussion and I have thoughts about existence, purpose, the nature of various cultural values; a soul searching sort of activity...literally sometimes. Debate is where you may be trying to win and you may have a side. Both are opportunities to learn something and try to understand something other than what you previously knew.

That is not to say that philosophical discussions can't devolve into debates. :)

32

[chicagomeg]

I think we're conflating philosophical discussions with debate. I think philosophical discussion and I have thoughts about existence, purpose, the nature of various cultural values; a soul searching sort of activity...literally sometimes. Debate is where you may be trying to win and you may have a side. Both are opportunities to learn something and try to understand something other than what you previously knew.

That is not to say that philosophical discussions can't devolve into debates. :)

32

I don't like either one of them. I stand by my original statement that I hate them SO MUCH.

I refuse to post anything of more substance as I don't want to get into the philosophical differences between philosophy and debating.

[Rollin]

This is in and of itself an invitation to a philosophical discussion.  ;)

My thoughts as well when I read the title.  I opened the thread to see if someone would pick up on that and you win the prize! Thanks!

[DocCyane]

I asked b/c I find Boomers to be the worst perpetrators.  Gen X seems to lean more towards the practical.

As a Gen-Xer, I thank you.

I don't debate with Boomers because they've known everything about everything since birth. And when you disagree they assume you don't understand their brilliant point.

I do understand. I just disagree.

Philosophical debates, in my experience, end up overly focused on minutiae as a means to prolong the debate. And like Arebelspy said, it's about being "right" rather than sharing ideas, experiences and perspectives.

I usually avoid such conversations. I am 44.

[arebelspy]

I don't debate with Boomers because they've known everything about everything since birth. And when you disagree they assume you don't understand their brilliant point.

Gosh you paint with a wide brush.  I've met many open minded, philosophical people of all ages.

Philosophical debates, in my experience, end up overly focused on minutiae as a means to prolong the debate.

Again, that is not a philosophical discussion.  That's, at best, arguing.

And like Arebelspy said, it's about being "right" rather than sharing ideas, experiences and perspectives.

I did not say that, at all.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  It's not about being right.  It's about learning, rather than teaching.  It's about questioning, and reflecting.  There is no right answer in a philosophical discussion, and there's no winning the discussion.

If it contains those things, it's not a philosophical discussion.

It sounds like most of you need to find some new people to talk about things with, and maybe reflect on your own approach to such discussions.

[AJ]

I don't like either one of them. I stand by my original statement that I hate them SO MUCH.

I refuse to post anything of more substance as I don't want to get into the philosophical differences between philosophy and debating.

I wonder if there isn't a major personalty type difference at play. I was at a wine bar with some friends and family, and a man I hadn't met before and I ended up in a really interesting discussion about whether reality TV shows were exploitative. I don't have a firm opinion on the subject, because honestly I had never given much thought to it, but I was enjoying the back and forth and learning in the process. Neither of us were mad, or even heated, but another girl at the table spoke up and said she was very uncomfortable and wanted to change the subject. She perceived that type of discussion as "conflict" and was a major conflict-avoider. I didn't perceive the discussion as conflict, and I don't believe the man did either. But to her, any scenario where people aren't bubbly and smiling and agreeing is conflict. Her idea of a good conversation is talking about who posted what pic or meme on facebook. I like FB memes as much as the next guy, but I also want to hear why someone believes what they do. Maybe they have thought of something I haven't, or maybe I have thought of something they haven't.

Anyway, my point (before I started rambling) was that different people experience conflict differently. That girl was an extreme example, but my hubby is kind of the same way. He just sees conflict where I don't see any and it makes him feel uncomfortable.

[ace1224]

i dislike them because i enjoy absolutes.  and if we are being perfectly honest and philosophical i don't enjoy thinking deeply if i don't have to (like for my job).  i keep most of my relationships on the surface level and only get that kind of "deep" with 2 maybe 3 people in life.

i do enjoy listening to other people have them though.

[Jamesqf]

Watching the "living off others' work" thread explode, has just reminded me of how much I despise philosophical debate.

You know what I hate?  People who claim that they despise philosophical debates, yet insist on reading whole long threads that are nothing but philosophical debate :-)

PS: It's rather like the people who say "Oh, there's nothing worth watching on TV right now", yet don't turn it off.

[arebelspy]

Watching the "living off others' work" thread explode, has just reminded me of how much I despise philosophical debate.

I don't know that I'd call that, or any thread on this forum, a philosophical discussion.

Maybe a debate.  Partly an argument.

Despite my love of Philosophical Debate (or rather, perhaps, because of it), I avoid threads like those.

To be frank, it's hard to have true Philosophical debate online.  Not the least reason being there's plenty of random people who want to jump in and argue or win, have their mind made up, and don't want to learn anything (see my earlier posts in this thread).

[EMP]

Watching the "living off others' work" thread explode, has just reminded me of how much I despise philosophical debate.

You know what I hate?  People who claim that they despise philosophical debates, yet insist on reading whole long threads that are nothing but philosophical debate :-)

PS: It's rather like the people who say "Oh, there's nothing worth watching on TV right now", yet don't turn it off.

Oh I couldn't stomach reading the whole thing.  I glance at it occasionally to see where it's at.  I see now it's devolved into speculation about, well, never mind that. 

Watching the "living off others' work" thread explode, has just reminded me of how much I despise philosophical debate.

I don't know that I'd call that, or any thread on this forum, a philosophical discussion.

Maybe a debate.  Partly an argument.

Despite my love of Philosophical Debate (or rather, perhaps, because of it), I avoid threads like those.

To be frank, it's hard to have true Philosophical debate online.  Not the least reason being there's plenty of random people who want to jump in and argue or win, have their mind made up, and don't want to learn anything (see my earlier posts in this thread).

I suppose calling it philosophical debate was a poor word choice on my part.  In any type of discussion, I attempt to be aware of my own confirmation bias and the fact that my experiences are subjective.  I expect that level of self awareness in others, and I am often sadly mistaken. 

Also, as the most vocal advocate on this thread, does the conversation ever get bogged down and boring?  I am a fairly patient person, but my attention will wander if someone's taking a long time to get to their point. 

[Nancy]

Not at all.  I just joined a group for philosophical discussions.  I haven't had much high level thought in my life in years, and had some discussions the other night that kept me up and I'm still turning over in my mind a few days later.  That hasn't happened to me in a long, long time.

I also love and miss having philosophical discussions. I find that they shine a light on my blind spots and help me catch a glimmer of the thought boxes under which I had been obliviously operating. Good for you for joining a group. I may have to find one myself.

[Jamesqf]

To be frank, it's hard to have true Philosophical debate online.

I disagree...  Or maybe I should say that while it's not exactly easy to have  discussions, philosophical or other, on-line, it's far, far easier than doing them in the flesh.  There's time to think out responses, and no interruptions from the sort of rude person who starts talking when you're halfway through a sentence.

[Erica/NWEdible]

I like a good spirited debate.

What I don't like is this: http://urlybits.com/2010/04/every-facebook-political-argument-youve-ever-seen/

[dahlink]

I like a good spirited debate.

What I don't like is this: http://urlybits.com/2010/04/every-facebook-political-argument-youve-ever-seen/

LOL, I had to post that one.  It reminds me of this monty python bit in a way:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[marty998]

Watching the "living off others' work" thread explode, has just reminded me of how much I despise philosophical debate.

I don't know that I'd call that, or any thread on this forum, a philosophical discussion.

Maybe a debate.  Partly an argument.

Despite my love of Philosophical Debate (or rather, perhaps, because of it), I avoid threads like those.

To be frank, it's hard to have true Philosophical debate online.  Not the least reason being there's plenty of random people who want to jump in and argue or win, have their mind made up, and don't want to learn anything (see my earlier posts in this thread).

It is hard, and it only really works if you keep it one on one. I remember one incredibly in depth discussion with and old friend surrounding the nature of time-space and the whole life, the universe and everything question.

(I sit here typing while watching Monty Python's the meaning of life.....Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate!)

We ended up trying to unravel the whole big bang thing and as expected got nowhere when discussing what was before. Saying there was nothing and then something was not a satisfactory answer for either of us.

Oh god, you are so big, so absolutely huge, gosh we're all really impressed by you... (I love that movie so much :) )

[Grigory]

There's a time and a place for everything, even philosophical discussions. Conversely, there are times and places when such discussions are worse than useless. Personally, I'm still having nightmares and PTSD from all those discussions at my liberal arts college. (And I graduated 5 years ago!) I think this quote from Neal Stephenson's "Reamde" sums it up best:

"Richard was, at bottom, a guy who did stuff. A farmer. A plumber. A Barney. What he wasn’t so good at was manipulating the internal states of other humans, getting them to see things his way, do things for him. His baseline attitude toward other humans was that they could all just go fuck themselves and that he was not going to expend any effort whatsoever getting them to change the way they thought. This was probably rooted in a belief that had been inculcated to him from the get-go: that there was an objective reality, which all people worth talking to could observe and understand, and that there was no point in arguing about anything that could be so observed and so understood. As long as you made a point of hanging out exclusively with people who had the wit to see and to understand that objective reality, you didn’t have to waste a lot of time talking. When a thunderstorm was headed your way across the prairie, you took the washing down from the line and closed the windows. It wasn’t necessary to have a meeting about it. The sales force didn’t need to get involved."

[arebelspy]

An objective reality isn't the only philosophical discussion.

Many would say it's not even that important, or interesting of one.

[Grigory]

An objective reality isn't the only philosophical discussion.

Many would say it's not even that important, or interesting of one.

But you have to admit that the "business first, chitchat later" attitude saves a lot of time.

[arebelspy]

But you have to admit that the "business first, chitchat later" attitude saves a lot of time.

Certainly, if you're a pragmatist.

[Bakari]

One of the things which totally endeared me to the forums was the degree of open-mindedness and lack of personal attacks that the 5 earlier threads on philosophy / politics had
www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/welcome-to-the-forum/your-mustache-might-be-evil/
www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/welcome-to-the-forum/pursuing-and-maintaining-a-responsible-early-retirement
www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/welcome-to-the-forum/let's-talk-charities-(afghani-brick-kilns-and-us)/
www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/welcome-to-the-forum/did-anyone's-eyes-pop-out-of-their-head-when/\
www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/welcome-to-the-forum/your-thoughts-on-the-we-are-the-99-blog/

There was debate, certainly, but it was not at all the every-facebook-argument that we expect.  People actually read each other's arguments, acknowledged each other's points, and responded with concrete data, often with sources to back them up.  We discussed some very complicated grey areas in depth, and it felt like most (though certainly not all) people involved took something away from it.  I certainly did.

At the same time, we are all to varying extents subject to confirmation bias and the backfire effect
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
but the best way to counter those cognitive errors is not to deliberately avoid thinking or discussing, its to be aware of them and consciously counter them by being open-minded, and then going out of your way to try to understand the opinions of those who disagree with you.  Any time you feel 100% certain about something, but there have been hundreds of millions of other people who are equally confident of something else, its worth asking why.  Maybe they are all wrong, and you and those who agree with you are right, but you will never really know if you don't question it. 


Has any great change ever happened, in the history of humanity, that was not preceded by some form of discussion among individuals?
We can agree that human society is not the same as it was 100 thousand years ago?  Unless we believe every single change that has ever happened anywhere has been negative, then there can be a concrete value that comes from discussing (which includes debating) stuff.
Unless we think that everything exactly as it is at this exact moment is 100% perfect, then there must be room for improvement yet still.  But how do we know what constitutes improvement?  The world is really complex, and the human brain is subject to a great many cognitive biases, so what looks obviously "objective" is VERY frequently completely wrong.  So do we want to just charge blindly forward, at random, and let fate decide if life gets better or worse?  Or do we want to try to get to the truth, even if its hard to find, and make rational decisions based on what we learn?

[tooqk4u22]

One of the things which totally endeared me to the forums was the degree of open-mindedness and lack of personal attacks that the 5 earlier threads on philosophy / politics had

+1.  I enjoy it and appreciate different perspectives, and on occassion have even changed my views based on these different perspectives. But I also believe it is ok to "agree to disagree" with people as long as we entertain each others points.

In a sense, such philosophical discussions are educational and evolutionary, as well as social, so they add a lot of value if you embrace it.