And, sure, hating people is tiring and mostly unproductive, but I have tons of energy for it and it's a labor of love for me, so I haven't changed (despite my worldy wisdom).
So, you find it logical and a sign of clear thinking to invest tons of energy in an activity that is both tiring and unproductive? Is that what you're saying?
I ask this question of myself as well. I really don't hate anybody I'm arguing with. Truly I don't, though sometimes I do suffer from the embarrassing syndrome of premature exasperation.
But I do engage energetically and relentlessly in debates that I'm pretty sure are entirely pointless, except for the joy of typing. I really do enjoy typing, so I guess it's technically a logical action, but truly a nerdy one.
The venom is an added bonus.
Added bonus for who? For the target? For you? For readers in general?
Philosophy people love to talk philosophy everywhere: on the bus, on a road trip, in the dorm, on the phone, through email, at a coffee shop, and on the internet - anywhere. I know no other major, except when you get to the very advanced levels of certain majors like math, physics, etc., in which the students leave the lecture and proceed to talk about it for the next three or four hours.
Ok, yes, I hear you, sounds right.
So, philosophy people will visit this forum with the desire to participate. The question is how do you keep them here? The answer is by having people who they can discuss things with at, more or less, their level.
Ok, this makes sense. Which brings us to...
Is venom and mutual water boarding their level?
I mean, who goes to school for four, six, or ten years to acquire a certain skill level at something and then proceeds to spend many hours talking to confused tyros? There's little in it for such a person.
Who are you and I in this scenario? The "experts" or the "confused tyros"?
Look at my little back-and-forth with artisticsolution. I explained almost everything that was wrong with her thinking, her arguments, at what benefit to myself? Philosophically, none.
Ok, so you are receiving no benefit. So why are you doing it?
Yeah, I eventually insulted her, but aside from that, what did she get out of my explanations? Nothing. That's called tutoring an obstinate, almost hopeless, insulting, arrogant person for the awesome reward of her insults and wilfull ignorance. My time was well spent, huh?
Ok, so she is receiving no benefit also. So why are you doing it?
Please understand, I'm not arguing you shouldn't do it, I'm asking you to investigate why you are doing it.
All of us would benefit with (rougly speaking) more experts here. Take Richard Baron, for example. If you want to learn something, have a discussion with him. He might not be right in what he believes, but he will at least give you arguments you have to take seriously.
One solution I've suggested is a moderated forum, where the moderator sets some standard posters must reach to be published. But this is a wildly unpopular idea with both forum users and forum owners.
But what's so interesting about me?
Not much if you're going to rant, insult and spew venom while declining to investigate why you're inclined towards those activities. If that's all you can put on the table, you're a very ordinary forum poster, who can be found in abundance on any ideology based forum anywhere on the net.
I say a lot things, many of which people find offensive and flat-out wrong, but so what?
Yes, me too. I do the same. And the same question arises. So what?
One "so what" is that the more intelligent and articulate people we both claim to want are probably not all that interested in conflict for the sake of conflict, and will see that process as the mark of childish amateurs, which is probably accurate.
Another "so what" can be that we make our way to conversations like this. I feel it's a valid philosophical point to challenge readers to take responsibility for their own reading experience. If I'm a loud mouthed rude fat headed jerk, why is the offended reader making that their problem? In theory, I feel this line of inquiry could be quite valuable, but I doubt it actually works very often.
The reason it probably doesn't work is that it is grounded in reason, and the problem is an emotional one. Imho, this error of assuming reason can address issues like say, religion, that aren't fundamentally intellectual in nature, is a big logic error that afflicts most philosophy.
People love to draw inferences about my character, psycological make-up, etc., but why do they do this?
Personally, I don't feel your or my personal situation is too important, but the overall subject of why ideological conversations that are supposed to be about reason almost always are hijacked by emotion is a quite relevant topic for philosophers.
Why, when confronted with my arguments for my beliefs? My arguments are why I believe what I believe. No other motive or reason needs to be posited.
In other words, you'd prefer to keep hiding behind your intellect.
This is your right of course, but if you wish to do it in public, in a tone that challenges everyone around you, you may find your own process challenged as well. You know, that's how this kind of place works.
You know, given how much I've challenged other posters here, there's no way I can now claim to be a victim if somebody challenges me. I've put myself in the game, and now must play it bravely, or be a coward and run.
So, unless you're going to show where I err philosophically, what's the point of forming inferences about my character or guessing what motivates me to say what I say?
Ok, so you'd like to have many opinions and take many actions, but you're not interested in why you have these opinions and take these actions.
This is typically just pure sophistry by people incapable of taking on my arguments. It's a sign of defeat, a desperate ploy by people ill-equipped to defend their opinions in the only acceptable way -- by arguing for them -- so they resort to whatever kind of objection against me they can manage. It's pathetic and transparently so.
I agree that those who can't answer a post will often try to change the subject to the poster, in an attempt to regain control of the battlefield. That's a very common debate tactic.
I see it as the waving of the white flag of surrender. And usually I'm ruthless in not just accepting victory gracefully, and choose instead to shove the white flag down their throat.
I guess the question is....
What does that behavior of mine have to do with philosophy and reason?