tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post6005480994118044217..comments2023-06-30T05:50:33.242-07:00Comments on philosiology: Surviving a Philosopher-Attackkatiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06917172986615727671noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-58330302464591048292015-03-06T20:35:31.251-08:002015-03-06T20:35:31.251-08:00Unfortunately, philosophy cannot be compared to la...Unfortunately, philosophy cannot be compared to lawyers, and other "professions", because philosophy is about how to correctly live life in its entirety, which involves giving reasons for actions. So to NOT engage others on how to live a better life on the grounds that one is playing a different game than "non-philosophers" play is bogus. Everyone is a philosopher, because all have worldviews that can be communicated through reason. Worldviews can determine war and death; if you are not able to defend a position, then you are going to be controlled by those who have give you what position you have. Don't be a slave. To quote Kant, AUDE SAPERE. Of course, as Socrates was well aware, the oi polloi can't handle that their world view is incoherent, so you have to control people by treating them like children and being polite, while selecting the one's with the most philosophic potential to actually discourse with seriously. That is not to say that refutation isn't pleasant ('ouk aedes', see Apology). Why did Socrates give Crito the speech of the Laws? He understands his old friend is no philosopher. BTW, Just imagine if someone denies the validity of universal human rights, multi-culturalism or women's rights or some other trendy position and then says he doesn't want to defend himself because he feels "cornered". Noone will come to his aid as champions of the "non-philosophers" then. You're kicked out of society. The philosopher has to defend himself against the many by concealing his real position and giving the many myths that they can cling to. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-4227004986644031012014-06-22T10:10:16.838-07:002014-06-22T10:10:16.838-07:00Bring 'm on! Evidentary arguments will conque...Bring 'm on! Evidentary arguments will conquer idle speculation and hair-splitting every time! ;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02598267045822553507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-68424030083581497452013-06-06T14:15:12.816-07:002013-06-06T14:15:12.816-07:00Wonderful post, thankyou. As an ex-philosopher (g...Wonderful post, thankyou. As an ex-philosopher (got out after graduate school) every single thing you wrote rang true of how I used to be, and sadly still am sometimes. (I'm working on it.)<br /><br />The people who are saying non-philosophers just need to toughen up are immature, naïve and utterly lacking in social grace. There is nothing superficial, intellectually dishonest or unphilosophical about being amiable and affable. Thinking that speaking (what you consider) the 'truth' somehow immunises you from a whole host of despicable behaviour is common (among philosophers and non-philosophers) but, frankly, stupid.<br /><br />There are 1 000 ways for a doctor to tell a family member that a patient has died, all speaking only the truth. There are very few that are becoming of a genuinely ethical character.<br /><br />Some of you think you are just doing what a banker, or accountant, or lawyer would do. No: they give advice when it is asked for, in a professional setting. They do not assume the role outside of work and strop when advice is not taken. In fact, they often prefer not to talk shop outside of work because it is tiring to them, boring to listeners, and hey, why give it away for free? Take note.<br /><br />Imagine you have not decided to attend a boxing lesson. You are just mucking around with a friend, a little play fighting. Your friend trains in boxing or maybe is a pro boxer. Your friend suddenly springs into boxing action as if they are sparring with a fellow boxer - or even in a professional fight - and will not stop *despite the fact your discomfort is clear* until you verbally admit defeat.<br /><br />*Then* they expect you to graciously thank them for the free lesson. And if you complain you are hurt, well that is your own fault for not being tough enough. They have done you a favour; now you know you are not tough and won't walking around thinking so and perhaps finding out from a less-than-friendly boxing stranger.<br /><br />This is how ridiculous you sound when you make these arguments about philosophy.<br /><br />I can only imagine the hopelessness of these sorts of philosophers should they be having a conversation with an expert in something else. E.g. I once made a joke Superman reference about the yellow sun, in order to break the ice among 3 other graduate students I had just met. The arrogant physicist immediately missed the joke, the point of making it, and tried to school me (having just met me, and in front of 2 other people we'd both just met) about how the sun isn't really yellow y'know [cue yawnsome physics lecture].<br /><br />Short version: grow up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-86118698283847128962012-08-22T22:09:06.819-07:002012-08-22T22:09:06.819-07:00um. the last sentence is painfully accurate.um. the last sentence is painfully accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-51429619682905976312012-07-05T18:17:29.133-07:002012-07-05T18:17:29.133-07:00(Too tired to read wall of text and therefore enga...(Too tired to read wall of text and therefore engage in what looks to be awesome debate. Also, I thought Jonathan Livengood was just parodying the post, taken on the role of the philosopher-who-smelt-blood. He either has done an excellent job or proved Katie correct. Anyway, reason I'm posting. :P)<br /><br />This didn't happen to me personally (I'm a philosopher myself - are we attackable?) but rather when talking with another philosopher and a non-philosopher. I'm not too keen on existentialism and often feel that the good arguments in favour of it quickly get left behind as the word 'authenticity' gains power. Disliking this trump, I oft argue against 'authenticity-for-authenticities-sake'. During one of these arguments, I proposed my feelings on the subject (long forgotten) and my philosopher friend promptly (and rightly) called me scum. This was followed by the non-philosopher trying to calm us down, that harshness was not needed, that we were all friends etc etc. Explaining the concept of Sartrian scum didn't actually help all that much and it is just one of those funny events where my honour was guarded for (as I saw it) no reason.<br /><br />In fact, as I recall, he stopped our debate with his niceties. Curse him! :PShane Geogheganhttp://jew-ishatheist.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-35358758425704639102012-06-26T07:23:14.816-07:002012-06-26T07:23:14.816-07:00yes we do, we are a lovely bunch! also, far less w...yes we do, we are a lovely bunch! also, far less willing to snipe and be mean, in my experience that is... <br />Also, that is a crude and inaccurate portrait you paint there, although, what with there being no responsibility, I can't hold it against you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-42378921194849101422012-04-02T15:33:18.121-07:002012-04-02T15:33:18.121-07:00That's interesting. I don't think my argum...That's interesting. I don't think my argument has those effects, but that's because it appears as though I have a different idea of what it means to be a "100% philosopher". It sounds to me that you're describing the 'blood-sport' mentality, which certainly exists in some (perhaps many) departmental cultures -- but which is optional, even among analytic philosophers. e.g., I don't feel like I'm one of those people, and certainly don't want to be like them.<br /><br />That having been said, I do agree with you that, to some extent, the 100% philosopher has to numb themselves to frustration (in themselves and others). That will be annoying, guaranteed. On the other hand, the numbness required of the philosopher has to fall well short of doing harm or posing a threat. Sensitivity to context -- to the other speaker, to the norms of cooperation, in what you intend to say, what you mean, what the other person is saying and what they mean -- are part and parcel of a good philosopher's toolkit.<br /><br />So I think we are close to agreement when you say that "being able to relate to a non-philosopher does not require one to stop reasoning; it requires one to be sensitive". I just prefer to put it this way: if you're open to the reasons-for-reasons exchange, then while you might not be a philosopher, you're on your way there.Benjamin S Nelsonhttp://blog.talkingphilosophy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-83472032062750126362012-04-02T14:15:39.577-07:002012-04-02T14:15:39.577-07:00Ben:
There is a difference between being a philos...Ben:<br /><br />There is a difference between being a philosopher in one's mind 100% of the time and acting as a philosopher 100% of the time to all people. I am quite "cognizant" of what a philosopher would be like if they compartmentalized philosophy, but I am also "cognizant" of what a philosopher acting like one 100% of the time is like, and I can tell you from my daily interactions with many philosophers that the latter is not a pleasant person to be around at all. They are not unpleasant because they challenge my reasoning (which would, theoretically, make me uncomfortable as an "unreasonable" non-philosopher), but because they are unkind, insensitive, and self-absorbed.<br /><br />Being able to relate to a non-philosopher does not require one to stop reasoning; it requires one to be sensitive. <br /><br />I think your argument is one advocating intellectual laziness, as it takes much more work to try an understand how to talk with non-philosophers (when you are a philosopher) than it takes to simply be a 100% philosopher all the time.katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06917172986615727671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-86437149606146355402012-04-02T13:42:05.277-07:002012-04-02T13:42:05.277-07:00Katie,
Thanks for the reference to de Botton. I&#...Katie,<br /><br />Thanks for the reference to de Botton. I'll check it out.<br /><br />I don't doubt that there is ample friction between philosophers and non-philosophers. I certainly do not doubt that prompting philosophy can be annoying. I also agree that philosophers ought to do some introspection about their purposes in communication: that they should pay attention to audience expectations, and their own expectations. Sounds good. <br /><br />I also have come to enjoy this blog. My initial post was slightly bitter, because I had a poor feeling for where you're coming from (since I had only read the initial entry and not any others). I think I now have a better idea, and am less apt to bristle. I apologize if I came across badly.<br /><br />And I certainly recognize that there is a difference between academic philosophers and non-academics. There is a spate of jargon in academic philosophy that a half-way decent philosopher can and should be able to explain (or eliminate altogether). I mean to refer to philosophy as a practice of trading reasons for reasons, that is tied to (but not necessarily the same as) academic philosophy. If you only have academic philosophy (or, frankly, any particular academic discipline) in mind, then I'd probably agree with you: smile and nod is the way to go.<br /><br />But then, I think you've almost perfectly articulated the proposition I find disturbing, when you claim that "expecting to be able to be 100% of a philosopher all the time is committing to a dangerous, head-in-the-sand way of living." I believe the opposite is true. It is risky and myopic to live a life that falls short of exchanging reasons for reasons, at least when reasons can be found. More than that -- and this is really getting right to my point, I think -- the ability to trade reasons for reasons is a necessary condition for trustworthiness. This is not necessarily a matter of persuading someone of something else, it's about having philosophy as a lifestyle.<br /><br />So, drawing this back to your original post -- your advice may only work for the 'compartmentalized philosophers'. When dealing with the '100% philosophers', it seems to me that only techniques #3-4 will work. #1-2 can have negative side effects that you may or may not be cognizant of.Benjamin S Nelsonhttp://blog.talkingphilosophy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-46759980114432379452012-04-02T11:10:57.799-07:002012-04-02T11:10:57.799-07:00@Ben:
First, there is a difference between academ...@Ben:<br /><br />First, there is a difference between academic philosophers and those of us who are not academic philosophers (the proletariat). I don't think it's putting myself below philosophers when I say that I'm a member of the non-philosopher common-folk who actually understand how the general public thinks and reacts. There are very few academic philosophers I know (and I know very many) who actually understand how the non-philosophical public thinks and reacts.<br /><br />In fact, I would argue that I was actually giving myself a sort of compliment.<br /><br />That said, the general public (non-philosophers) usually characterize their feelings in such terms as "annoyed" and "angry." You do not even know how many philosopher-partners I talked to before I wrote this entry, and every one of them used the term "annoyed" to describe their feelings.<br /><br />Now, this term as I am using it may seem general to you, not defined clearly, too subject to mood changes, but I can assure you that when I say "annoyed" I mean: angry, attacked, rejected, made to feel stupid, unloved, etc. <br /><br />I try to defend you philosophers in this blog, but I do not think that the feelings of a non-philosopher (particularly a philosopher's partner)should have to be trounced upon merely because we must let philosophers be philosophers all the time (this reminds me of the "let boys be boys" argument that defends all manners of sexual discrimination). <br /><br />You should notice that I do explain why philosophers act the way that they do in this same entry. I just do not believe that a philosopher should treat every non-philosopher as if they are a philosopher. Any philosopher can learn to be sensitive to others (and should learn to be!), just like us of the proletariat. <br /><br />Have you heard the recent interview of Alain de Botton on BookTV? If not, I encourage you to listen to part of it (at least the first half). In this interview, Botton shares his view of "The University," particularly humanities programs. Some of what he said is silly, but one thing I think he really had right: humanities programs have disconnected from the rest of the world. "Normal" people do not understand how a humanities program connects at all to how they live their lives and what they believe about the world.<br /><br />That said, expecting to be able to be 100% of a philosopher all the time is committing to a dangerous, head-in-the-sand way of living.<br /><br />I guess the question I would want you (and any philosopher) to ask themselves is this: What do I really want to happen from my philosophical discussions with non-philosophers? Do I really want them to change their opinions/arguments about things? Am I just doing this to make myself feel great or to expose their ideas as being foolish?<br /><br />If you (the philosopher) really want to change the minds of non-philosophers about something, then you need to understand how to go about doing so in a non-damaging way that they can understand. This means that you have to talk about feelings with a non-philosopher and that you will have to be sensitive to how they take your "attacking."katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06917172986615727671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-50930574797481416032012-04-02T09:28:19.283-07:002012-04-02T09:28:19.283-07:00Hi katie,
A lot of what you say is fine and fair,...Hi katie,<br /><br />A lot of what you say is fine and fair, so far as it goes. I do not assume that all philosophical conversations are a benign debunking exercise. Sometimes, in some very obvious cases we could all agree on, select philosophers have behaved in ways that are hopelessly pretentious and abrasive: as you put it, not shedding any light on the problem. I'm sure there is a bestseller waiting to be written on the subject of philosophers behaving badly.<br /><br />But here's my situation. Without any kind of principled and intuitive definition of an 'attack', non-philosophers are going to feel entitled to shut down philosophers whenever they feel 'super-annoyed'. This leads to a kind of cold shoulder towards the philosopher that effectively undermines and limits the trust of the philosopher in others. This is especially devastating for those of us who are gung-ho 100% philosophers.<br /><br />I mean, there is no "prolitariat". You do an injury to yourself and others by putting yourself in a class below the philosopher. Putting aside some self-indulgent professional myths, we're really not *that* special!Benjamin S Nelsonhttp://blog.talkingphilosophy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-88978499305893172432012-04-02T07:16:58.979-07:002012-04-02T07:16:58.979-07:00@Ben: This is post is for non-philosophers, not ph...@Ben: This is post is for non-philosophers, not philosophers. Of course it doesn't quite make sense to you, because you are on the other side.<br /><br />I have no problem myself with philosopher attacks (I engage in them too often myself), but there are many non-philosophers who do. This post is meant to (1) explain why philosophers do what is perceived as "attacking" and (2) to show how to stop these sorts of discussions before they hurt relationships (there does often come a point in a long-term relationship where a non-philosopher can handle this sort of dialogue, though).<br /><br />Your response goes back to the problem that I always have with philosophers: Philosophers think they are just pushing people and exposing illogical ideas (or pushing people where it hurts), and they interpret non-philosophers as just reacting because they feel bad that they are being exposed. What is really going on is that non-philosophers only see such conversations as attacks--not shedding light on a problem with they argument, but being unmercifully being backed into a corner by a vicious animal. Non-philosophers will not change their minds or adjust their ideas in these circumstances.<br /><br />Certainly, I don't lay out a detailed exposition of what such "attacking" is in this essay, but this is because every non-philosopher I know has experienced something like it, thus it does not need a rigorous definition. I am not an analytic philosopher; I am a member of the simple proletariat (and so is a large portion of my audience).katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06917172986615727671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-13219949757875362482012-04-01T12:53:49.151-07:002012-04-01T12:53:49.151-07:00I agree with some of what the author is hinting at...I agree with some of what the author is hinting at. The 'blood-sport' mentality is amusing and often obnoxious. Perhaps some of my colleagues have had the quality of their training affected by a dystopian job market. Or, perhaps it depends on local culture and a sense of philosophical role-models: someone who takes Jerry Fodor for a role model is going to behave in ways that are surprisingly different from, say, John Rawls or Jurgen Habermas.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I'm concerned that this essay is overstated, in such a way that it acts as an apologia for tone trolling. In particular, it is revealing that the author conflates being 'super-annoyed' with being hurt or attacked. I have to hope that if the author just took an introduction to critical thinking from a competent instructor populated by decent human beings, they might discover that many "attacks" are actually the first times they have encountered other earnest, independent human beings engaged in dialogue.<br /><br />That might sound peculiar, so I'll try to explain my point of view using a bit of autobiography. When I was young, I assumed that any time people argued it was because they were fighting. No substance, just feeling. I spent a lot of time scared in my room, curled up in a ball because everyone was yelling at each other inexplicably. I still remember the revelation when I was a teenager, when I figured out that actually people disagreed over propositions, not just because of feelings or frames, but for *reasons*! What an amazing insight that was -- and what a relief! I mean, if there isn't any back-and-forth over reasons, then what hope have we got? Why ever bother with dealing with anyone, ever? Indeed, why trust anyone? If my only link to other people is philosophy, and you respond to the exchange of reasons for reasons as an 'attack', then you're inadvertently cutting people like me off from the only social world we feel safe in -- the space of reasons.<br /><br />Here's my essential problem. I don't take issue with your critique of 'blood-sport' philosophy, which is dead-on. I also don't take issue with the idea that other people have a different set of standards for trust: while I would prefer it if everybody were more philosophical than not, I know that life isn't all about what I want. My problem is that you can't tell on the basis of your prior assumptions what is a 'philosophy attack', and what is a disagreement that only appears to be an attack because you have a different standard of trust than your interlocutor. If you aren't willing to be alive to the possibility that you're facing genuine problems that deserve to be talked about, then you will think that you're entitled to slime anyone who wants to dialogue in places that are outside of your comfort zone. And that's not very nice.Benjamin S Nelsonhttp://blog.talkingphilosophy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-23756093651598988082012-01-01T12:30:57.961-08:002012-01-01T12:30:57.961-08:00My son, a philosopher, and my other son, a linguis...My son, a philosopher, and my other son, a linguist, and my niece, a passionate Buddhist, have one thing in common, their wonderful facility with the spoken word. For someone more comfortable expressing herself in writing, this can be intimidating. I like to think about my words, modify them, and make sure they communicate what I mean. In discussions (arguments?), I often feel outmatched. Does this mean I am a non-philosopher, incapable of understanding or searching for the truth?<br /><br />Why do people assume their philosophy/religion/method of examination/whatever is superior to or more important than mine, merely because I am less verbally able or less inclined to impose myself on others? Is this an admission of "defeat?" Am I imperceptive, incapable of logical thought? People who thrive on the love of knowledge can be admirable in their search for the truth, but even more so when they remember that humor and kindness are also pathways to true communication.<br /><br />When my sons exhausted me with their words, I learned that batting my eyes and saying, "I love you" with excruciating sincerity worked like a charm. In order to avoid this humiliation, they became more sensitive to my gentler hints to end the conversation. Of course, I can't use it on every philosopher I meet, as he/she might misinterpret my intent. But wait, now that I'm a senior citizen, it could work really well! Hmmmmm.<br /><br />Oh, yes. My philosopher son sent this link to me. Thanks, Keith! And thanks, Katie, for raising awareness about the potential harm of the dreaded (bum bum bum bummmmmmm) philosopher attack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-47791527155249568492011-09-21T12:28:26.099-07:002011-09-21T12:28:26.099-07:00Action through non-action? That would work if you ...Action through non-action? That would work if you were dealing with someone who is just expounding an opinion. Philosopher thrive on discourse and (see: play reflex in above posts) are great at drawing people into the exchange of ideas. You would have to rudely avoid myriad prompts and copious questions, which is not nearly as an effective strategy as those already listed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-89265604743837770752011-05-23T06:56:54.903-07:002011-05-23T06:56:54.903-07:00First off, I think a lot of the time people assert...First off, I think a lot of the time people assert certain things and expect to have them accepted unquestioningly because people have psychologically labelled them as "fact," or believe themselves to be infallible, or believe their view is so generally accepted any attempt to question it must be pure pedantry, or some other psychological problem they have, and oftentimes what they see as a personal attack is just someone not blindly accepting what they say, going so far as to dare to dispute a claim someone has made. Of course that isn't to say I don't just jump in with the intention of making someone feel bad sometimes. I think a more common problem is being openly digusted, dissapointed or angry with someone's reasoning after contesting a point with good intentions.<br /><br />If unprovoked however, the vast majority of the time It's not about being right. It's about making you realise you're wrong, or you're commited to mutually exclusive positions, which is basically the same thing. From what I understand of what an attack constitutes it involves backing you into a corner. Obviously this is never something you should do for the sake of it, but if you're wrong, and refuse to accept it; finding some new questionable chain of reasoning every time the last is disproved the only way to find out if you're wrong is to cut off all chains of reasoning and assumptions made to justify them, until you either find something sound or run out of angles to approach. Feeling cornered can be a sign that you're irrationally attatched to something that isn't true: If the philosopher has good intentions he can only cut off contradictory assumptions, empirically false assumptions, false logic and other mistakes. If doing so makes you feel cornered that seems like a problem with your feelings and/or your ideas.<br /><br />Of course, arguing is a sport to a lot of people, and like any "sport" it can be particularly fun to "play" with a newbie. If this is your situation you can almost always win by refusing to play.<br /><br />Anyway as far as avoid having to feel bad about how your ethical positions contradict each other (and you should feel really really bad, unless your ethical position is roughly, "fuck ethics") you can stave off attempts to make you think about your views in a few ways the OP didn't mention:<br /><br />You can appeal to a lack of knowledge/skill. "I don't have the practice with this form of debate that you do, and I can't accept what appear to be convincing arguments from you because I can't tell if they're convincing or true: roughly, it all looks like continental philosophy to me." <br /><br />Another solution is not to commit to positions that let you be backed into a corner. Instead of "Yes I commit fully to the view that blahblahblah." try "I didn't mean that literally/ that's just how I feel/ it was a conversational gambit, not a truth proposition"<br /><br />Point to abuses of logic (e.g. ontological argument) and say you don't have the inclinatin to decode a logical maze to just become wrong on a higher level.<br /><br />If its some non-trivial value that's important to you, you can just say its a matter of psychology/preference/aesthetics. Don't say its a matter of morals if you want to avoid arguing.<br /><br /><br />Assuming that the philosopher has good intentions, you problem want something between "You (I) don't have to be right to be happy" and actually being open to thinking things through, especially realising that criticising something you've isn't a personal attack, and that the way you feel may in fact be innapropriate. Feeling can't be literally "wrong" but in much the same way you'd prefer not to get angry at people for bad reasons you should preder not to feel cornered for bad reasons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-89285366224318251592011-05-11T14:51:54.494-07:002011-05-11T14:51:54.494-07:00What about an Eastern approach? Action through no...What about an Eastern approach? Action through non-action. Surely if the non-philosopher was to listen intently for a period of time without responding or engaging, the philosophy attack would eventually pass as all things do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-21758522143797921692011-05-06T16:34:32.849-07:002011-05-06T16:34:32.849-07:00ENTP here, ENT in 80s.ENTP here, ENT in 80s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-34821701911231453342011-05-06T05:09:56.614-07:002011-05-06T05:09:56.614-07:00There's another response that I particularly l...There's another response that I particularly love, said to an aspiring philosopher, that seems to work well...<br /><br />My brother is one who loves to argue over the fine minute points, and while I do enjoy a good philosophical conversation, his approach annoys me to no end.<br /><br />One day I figured it out:<br /><br />Either <br />1) Respond with a noncommittal "maybe..." while seeming to space out, or <br /><br />2) (This one works best with family / partners) "You know... I love you, man..."<br /><br />That second one sounds remarkably cheesy, but it is far more effective than the first, because he's smart enough to know that I am explicitly avoiding the conversation, but in the nicest way I can think of.<br /><br />Last thought:<br /><br />Berdyaev made a comment (which I am surely going to butcher here) that in philosophy, you find out less about the nature of the universe and more aboutthe character of the philosopher.Skaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09395211550346634208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-65874123493544686912011-05-05T23:07:14.403-07:002011-05-05T23:07:14.403-07:00Anonymous,
Hilarious that you say that because I ...Anonymous,<br /><br />Hilarious that you say that because I am an INTP (borderline ENTP) and was a philosophy student as an undergrad--now an environmental policy graduate student, by way of Heidegger of course : ). Love this blog, and send it along to my girlfriend.<br /><br />For those who were using the chess analogy I think that is appropriate, phenomenologically, more so from our perspective then from the non-philosopher. I was literally in the shower today thinking about a "line" of reasoning that I would use in the face of an upcoming and completely hypothetical argument. In thinking of this "line" I prepared a statement to the affect that the attack is only successful until a response that brings the position to equality is found, and that this is often the nature of philosophical argumentation and innovation. Perhaps philosophers are also fond of chess and the heuristic lessons it provides?Jake Claronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-20432009948729304892011-05-05T13:27:30.937-07:002011-05-05T13:27:30.937-07:00The analytical philosopher sounds almost exactly l...The analytical philosopher sounds almost exactly like the problem most people have with ENTPs and INTPs. I wonder if these types are attracted to philosophy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-33384331732770224302011-05-05T11:00:48.553-07:002011-05-05T11:00:48.553-07:00When dealing with my lawyer husband (who is also s...When dealing with my lawyer husband (who is also subject to the same attack the conversation with logic/non-consensually employ the Socratic method syndrome you describe) I simply to point out to him that he's being an asshole and if he keeps it up, I'm going to quit talking to him. It's a good strategy in general, I find:Tell people what your action will be if their action continues, and then follow through.Helhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16157394850950703372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-20058013470890648792011-05-05T10:55:39.389-07:002011-05-05T10:55:39.389-07:00I have lived with my (rather sensitive, thank good...I have lived with my (rather sensitive, thank goodness) analytic philosopher for 15 years. This would have really helped back at the start! Now, all I have to do is lay a hand on his shoulder and he gets the point. They aren't beyond training ;)DaniTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-48644610829822153762011-05-05T03:52:13.249-07:002011-05-05T03:52:13.249-07:00my approach, when sensing an impending philosopher...my approach, when sensing an impending philosopher-attack, is to lay a small, but cunning intellectual trap.<br /><br />to date, none have seen it coming. all who have chased me down that path have hit the wall, and backed away.<br /><br />i almost never tell them i was trained by jesuits until it's too late.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636634556256791723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6014309183503962416.post-82361335904521356972011-05-04T23:36:02.066-07:002011-05-04T23:36:02.066-07:00Andres,
i am sure most philosophers are delighte...Andres, <br /><br />i am sure most philosophers are delighted by the findings hard sciences are producing. New evidence fuel new questions for philosophers to contemplate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com