"Intellectual" warfare

IMHO, sometimes its best just to get out of there. Call it a "tactical retreat". That's about the only solution I can come up with.

I would be willing to accept that the truth is a group effort, and that we are here as much to educate as to be educated... If you are throwing people out of the life boat you will never reach the shore of truth... For it to have meaning we have to reach it together...

Actually, Fido, it has happened before that people have abandoned the lifeboat, knowing that their supplies couldn't sustain all of them all the way to safety. So they either sacrificed themselves or got sacrificed so that some could live rather than all of them die.

Perhaps Rex has the right of it... When someone starts getting aggressive, the best thing is probably to get out if you don't want a contest of intellects. No one ever wins those anyway, so while they may be entertaining for a time, they quickly grow old...

There is a story from colonial times of an English slaver, who ran out of wind and then out of water, and fearing thirst, one one day threw half the slaves over board, and on the next threw the rest, and after all, had the nerve to ask insurance to pay for his lost cargo... The insurance man, or rather the judge in the suit simply asked: Did the Captain throw himself over with the cargo??? The case was dismissed...

In a nation, or any community, it is not unusual to ask people to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the many; but invariably, when societies are dying, they ask the many to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a few.

I would say that the better you know and accept yourself, the less need there is to engage in 'attacking' conflict, and the more interested in you are in other peoples opinions.

Attack born from criticism is done out of fear. A completely self-assured person knows whether or the criticism is valid - and acknowledges valid criticism ...

...and if the criticism is not valid, the self-assured person (knowing that it is not valid, and comfortable with who he/she is) can respectfully and with caring, respond, perhaps with something like 'well, I at the moment I a different view of that, but just so I can understand, why do you say.... ' (that of course, is a very summarised version)

To me, the same goes for differences of opinion or knowledge, though I think in these forums, it becomes a bit of an intellectual game.

The other thing that is removed is tone of voice. You can say things that would otherwise be taken as an attack, in a warm voice, and people hearing you will understand the nature in which it is meant...but the lack of 'voice tone' in written word removes understanding of the nature in which written word is meant, and we therefore have to add words in that suggest tone - which can be difficult to do accurately.

Personally, I have a difference of opinion with JL's signature line. I would have gone 'The spirit of civil conversation consists of exploring the validities of anothers observations, rather than in automatically tearing it down." (or something similar - that's off the top of my head)

That's a good one also. But most often, a person starts attacking when the validity of his observations become hard to defend, when it starts becoming apparent that the idea wasn't so good after all. That's usually when all hell breaks lose.

...you probably are referring to your very own constant attacks...care to read the inumerous threads where we debated and check who actually start the gratuitous criticism, you will be surprised or maybe not !
Recently you attributed me the authorship on what you called an idiotic paradox who crosses go figure the entire history of Philosophy...I guess the facts speak for themselves...

I was wondering when you would show up.
And here you are.

...I know who was the inspiration for this little display of nonsense...I just want to make clear and people can do a detailed investigation thread by thread on who starts the insults time and again...the thing is I have no problem with insults prevented the arguments are fairly good...in your case, oh dear, a ten year old would do far better...well thank god posts cannot be deleted in this forum, your interventions are a monument to stupidity !

Well, I am rarely trying to insult you. You just see it as insults when someone shows that your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.
Then you start off like you do now, with insults and an arrogant and condescending attitude.
If someone is bored enough and cares enough to do as you suggest (which I doubt), and dig up all those posts, I am pretty sure they will speak for themselves in that regard.

Fil, from your last two posts one sees that you are hell-bent on conquest. Why? What do you seek to gain?

The thing is, there is usually a reason, that in the 'owner of the views' opinion was valid when it came to forming that view. Even in the silliest of opinions, there is probably aspects of how and why the view was formed, that is valid. It's usually a matter of degrees.

That is probably so, vikorr. But if someone wants to present an idea or opinion, and you don't agree with the paradigm underlying that opinion, you kind of have to start from there. But the one presenting his idea might not want to talk about that paradigm, because if it turns out that the paradigm no longer is valid, it means he has to revise the whole idea.

I've sometimes started threads here, starting with challenging the paradigm that consciousness evolved by means of physical evolution. Many people believe in that paradigm so strongly that it is hard or impossible for them to consider an alternative. Often that has led people to question my intelligence or call me an idiot or this or that. I've probably done something similar to others at least as many times as I've been on the receiving end.

It is hard to resist arguments but I do think it is the wisest choice for the most part.
It is so much easier to rush to anger than it is to control ones own behavior. It seems that the most primitive emotion is the easiest one to lose control of.

For myself, anger rarely enters into it.
But when people get condescending and arrogant it is hard to swallow it. Especially when you have provided sound arguments that are summarily dismissed. Not countered, mind you, just ignored or sometimes with an insult presented as though it is a counter argument.

If someone presents an idea, and i object based on my understanding, and the one I talk to can counter my objection I will have learned something.
But if the counter argument is "you obviously don't know anything about reductionism", or something along those lines, it doesn't really promote constructive discussion.

Some people just try to be dicks and it is sad but it is true. You do have others that think that they know what they are saying but are wrong. All you can do is try to share your understandings with others and see what you can learn from them.
We all have something to share but we will not always be able to do so because of the many different obstacles that get in the way.

I think some people are not out to learn or truly discuss something.
Some people are just after confirmation.
I remember myself ten years ago. Head full of ideas, thinking I was so smart for coming up with all these creative philosophical twists. Then I started discussing them with people, and I slowly realize that this identity, this idea I have of myself as an accomplished and important thinker, is more of a delusion.
Faced with that realization, I can understand that some will do anything to maintain their delusion, because not doing so can have a profound impact on a person's self esteem.
The sad thing is that by clinging to the delusion, you effectively block yourself from becoming what you want to be, from turning the delusion into reality.

Well, true - there are people who will get their backs up no matter how it's put to them. And when the method of communication is writing, it's much more difficult to moderate the conversation.

This reminds me of an interesting claim that I once read in a book. It went along the lines of 'everything we think makes it's way into our genes to be passed on to the next generation'. It was more talking about 'how' we think, and what we feel. The author did present some evidence that was plausible, although I don't recall what it was now...but it did set me to thinking that it may explain the rapidly increasing rate of allergies making their way into western society....as possibly of product of increasing fears of everything....from germs (disinfectants, obsessive cleaning etc), to insects (aerosol sprays, to insisting no insects get in the house/work), to sickness (taking antibiotics all the time, medicating so many 'illnesses', and coming up with more and more 'disorders'), to overprotectivness of children, to media generated fears...and the list goes on (though probably to lesser degree than the ones mentioned).

Anyway, the point being - there is a distinct possibility that we develop physically yes, but oddly, as a result of mental development (after humans started developing language, and started recording and studying things)

Ah, I remember the evidence now - behaviours by animals that were learned by themselves, or taught and trained into animals by humans, were passed on to the next generation of animals (when of course enough of their species learned or were taught the 'trait')

I have found , for the most part , that this warfare , intellectually , is based on people being uncomfortable with an idea they have never thought of before

so that their mind set is more based on ego rather than true understanding of whatever subject

from the esoteric , to the layman