On intentionality and more
Having spent a good 10 years on online forums, I find a glaring issue that grips any online forum or conversation for the matter. Namely, it is the intent of the speaker. The issue is manifest in online discourse where anonymity is affirmed and lack of knowledge about the speaker or his or her intent in discussing a topic. The people I speak of are trolls, shills, internet bullies, and in the more abstract "sophists". These people exploit their anonymity and lack of discernable intent to promote ideas that can either be dangerous or downright stupid.
How does one resolve this issue of lack of discernable intent from discourse?
In ordinary conversations with a person in real life we are able to see for ourselves what a person intends by their behavior, facial expressions, and other non-verbal cues; but, on the internet, we don't have access to this prominent feature of human interaction.
So extreme can this become an issue, that one forms an attitude of insincerity or downright ignorance about the other speaker given this epistemic lack in discerning intent.
In my other thread 'On Psychologizing', I mention the issue of exploiting psychology as a means towards some unknown end. The interlocutor is trapped in an accusation (or a type of ad hominem) that the discussion digresses into a type of pissing contest (if males are involved).
Now, from a female perspective, given that males are around and about on the internet professing their inadequacies in the form of bullying or projection or shitposting or trolling, how does a female find any desire to engage in online discourse?
How does one resolve this issue of lack of discernable intent from discourse?
In ordinary conversations with a person in real life we are able to see for ourselves what a person intends by their behavior, facial expressions, and other non-verbal cues; but, on the internet, we don't have access to this prominent feature of human interaction.
So extreme can this become an issue, that one forms an attitude of insincerity or downright ignorance about the other speaker given this epistemic lack in discerning intent.
In my other thread 'On Psychologizing', I mention the issue of exploiting psychology as a means towards some unknown end. The interlocutor is trapped in an accusation (or a type of ad hominem) that the discussion digresses into a type of pissing contest (if males are involved).
Now, from a female perspective, given that males are around and about on the internet professing their inadequacies in the form of bullying or projection or shitposting or trolling, how does a female find any desire to engage in online discourse?
Comments (52)
Personally, I engage with individuals up until the point that they can no longer be respectful. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm often proven wrong.
I'm just stubborn I guess? Plus, I really, really like philosophy.
How does that make you feel if I am so bold in asking?
Misanthropic.
But I do trust that the mods will back me up if someone becomes actually belligerent.
I honestly don't take nastiness from internet strangers personally. I think it's a reflection on them, not me. That being said, I don't feel the need to serve as their personal punching bag because they have psychological issues.
Hmm, that sure is a theme that gets recycled around here a lot.
Sorry you feel that way. :worry:
Now, I try to give much more attention to intelligent, funny, honest, or helpful posts. Usually the way I respond to annoying ones is by talking to myself what i feel like saying. Then just type “lol” or something pacifying. But darn... the obnoxious things always grab the attention. Like loud radio ads. If it bleeds, it leads, as the saying goes.
How about some healthy wallowing? Yes, I am becoming evangelical.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Just turn off the TV. I haven't watched TV in a long time.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, that can be true.
What makes you tick?
Ideas and arguments must stand or fall on their own merit, not the merits of the speaker, or the merits of their intentions.
If people are sharing pointless or irrelevant ideas and arguments which happen to be technically true in some respect, just ignore them as irrelevant and pointless to interact with.
This is hard to fathom. I mean, if we were just talking in formal languages, then your statement and the rest would follow. But, having spent time here and seeing that conversations are actually about (well actually mostly about to put it lightly) normative matters, then intentionality is of great importance.
Not sure if that made sense or not.
Have you made any “wallowing” t-shirts? It might spread the word. I’ve seen worse ideas on GoFundMe and such. The world could use some mindful wallowing. Maybe other names were used for it. Lao Tsu did it. Henry David Thoreau. Emily Dickenson. John Lennon and Yoko bedding for peace. Moses wallowed in the desert for years. Probably all the well known philosophers.
While this is true to us as individuals with the subjective opinion that we are more correct than others, philosophy has demanding standards about the method of persuasion it prefers to use. It requires that something be persuasive for rational, logical, or otherwise evidence based reasons (we want/pray/wish that truth is more persuasive than falsehood).
There's a whole world of sophistry out there whose only utility is that it is highly persuasive, and people appeal to them every day (more and more in the quick-rhetoric-slinging world of online media). But as philosophers, we're supposed to recognize them as fallacious appeals and seek more reliable arguments and conclusions.
In theory it is more important that we are correct than it is important we are persuasive, but neither is useful without the other.
Oh dear. I'm just a pig, so what do I know? *Goes back to eating some mushrooms*
Yeah, rhetoric, and all that jazz.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's all true; but, we're at square one. Meaning, that some appeal to authority is required, which in my opinion goes against the very ethos of philosophy. And they call economics the dismal science.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How do you present either of those traits in a post-modern, hyper-normalized world?
About the topic... I think one can kind of “read between the lines” to suss out some kind of intention. It’s my feeling that people really want to be understood, even when they are being sneaky or something. Especially in our current culture, where it seems one has to scream or be on fire to even be noticed for a moment. Subtlety is not in the top 40 list of prized virtues at the moment.
My professor friend just installed a new thermostat for me, I helped a little bit. He always makes me feel better about myself. It's the easiest thing in the world imo to know another's intent, the problem I have is letting go of negative people.
It's like a train wreck, i just have to keep attending. The fault of negative people in my life is all mine.
Wishing you the very best! What a great post!
Oh, Eeyore. My dear companion and friend. As well as neurotic and anxious Piglet.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, I hear you. *Said in Piglet's voice*
Right. And, respect too.
Quoting Daniel Cox
Negative and toxic people. Yup, that's the (perceived) population of the internet. Well, it depends on where you spend your time on the webs, that is.
Quoting Daniel Cox
When in doubt scream and shout?
Quoting Daniel Cox
Thank-you and you too.
Communication between people (don't know about other species) has always been difficult because...
Sometimes people have mixed motives. Sometimes people are not clear about their own intent. Other people can be difficult to interpret. The signs and signals of language are not always clear -- even face to face. Sometimes we are not clear receivers of messages. We sometimes harbor suspicions, hopes, fears, doubts, erroneous thinking, and so on, which can make it difficult for us to gauge the intent of an innocuous "Good morning."
Certainly, some people in internet chat or lengthier discussion formats intend to irritate others, write abusive, dismissive, crude comments, and so forth. Stupid people are able to use the internet, their stupidity notwithstanding. Some people are short-fused and explode with little provocation.
Despite all that, most of the time people in a Internet format like TPF manage to communicate in two directions successfully, with a minimum of friction. [The minimum of friction still involves at least some friction.] One of the ways we achieve this smooth, low-friction mode of interaction is through the good offices of our own little gestapito which liquidates offenders swiftly, if sometimes arbitrarily. We have to assume that our gain is other fora's loss. Those expelled from Paradise no doubt migrate to other sites of philosophical interaction where they spray their hot bile all over unsuspecting (but perhaps deserving) subjects.
Square one is logic, reason, and evidence in pursuit of truth above persuasiveness. That's the authority it appeals to by definition (or at least under most philosophical roofs).
Quoting Wallows
With arguments that are simultaneously persuasive and true.
Well easy for the socially adequate to say. I have never felt that people's behavior, facial, expressions, non-verbal cues, etc are anywhere near consistent enough for me to make predictions. If I know a person VERY well, I can know these things based on past experience. Otherwise, I struggle to have any idea what people are thinking/feeling. Fortunately, I am also inherently disinterested in these things.
I think the need to know WHO you are talking to, is part of the problem you are noticing. If I don't care if the person who posted is old, young, male, female, black, white, lgbtq, an alien, or a dog that can type; then ALL I can do is address the content of their post. Now obviously, me being further along the sociopath spectrum and possibly including a pinch of asperger's makes this natural for me, but I often wonder why, on a Philosophy Forum, there is such frequent dismissal of arguments because the person is young, old, female, christian, atheist, etc. I guess our brains can't help but take the shortcuts, and if we know a person is an old female, then we can make all sorts of "accurate" assumptions?
That's what he has objected to expressing either at all, or only unless it meets his approval. (Of course, when he does it, it's okay). It's shut up or sugar coat. That's what I read between the lines, anyway. And don't even think about masturbating in the marketplace!
When someone stands out in a community, and a group within that community disapproves, then we see pressure to conform manifest, sometimes in subtle ways, as in the opening post, which I would say is largely taking aim at me. But if I said that, then I predict it would be met with insinuations that I'm a paranoid egomaniac or some such, so I won't say it.
If you break a taboo, then there are predictable consequences. It's a bit like there being a wolf amongst sheep, but on a much more complex level.
This whole thing is like a game of chess. It is no coincidence that this discussion appeared shortly after he made a comment in his previous discussion, "Pissing contest?".
How do you know even know such people exist if you lack the facilities to determine intent?
Bullseye! And that whole line of reasoning collapses.
And Wolfee. Remember him? Loveable little chap. Bit bitey though.
So, intent can be discerned. I never said it can't; though it is quite hard on online forums as I described.
Then, what's the difference between a good lawyer and a philosopher if I may phrase the question in such a manner?
Sexual innuendos aside I slept well and wallowed contently in my bed. It was a healthy wallow, to say the least.
Be honest and forthright with yourself and others. If that doesn’t pan out well just assume the other person might actually be attempting to be honest and forthright themselves.
Stop short of engaging with people whom appear to be talking drivel and/or contradicting themselves. Usually someone else will try to engage and you’ll get a better idea of whether or not it’s worth your effort.
And finally, as you’ve seen me do, if someone says something idiotic don’t be afraid to tell them so for fear of a knee-jerk reaction. We all say idiotic things from time to time and if we do we should be thankful that others can point this out (and then decide if their assessment is at fault or not).
Sexual innuendos? Where! Where!
Buckets of warm "stuff" being dropped on me. I don't mind, though.
Mostly though, I associate "slop" with hogs wallowing. Nothing sexual, just wallowing, snorting, grunting. What hogs do in wallowing holes.
Have you observed hogs doing their wallowing thing? They take it very seriously. Usually in the summer.
"Slop" is also a verb. "To slop the hogs" is to feed them their daily ration of ground corn mixed with other feeds and water or milk and dumped into troughs, where the hogs act like the pigs swine are.
The good lawyer focuses on persuasive power while the good philosopher focuses on predictive power.
Under the adversarial justice system, prosecution and defense attorneys both do their best to win their case, with the overall thinking being that truth or justice will tend to emerge as the result of their conflict and competition (in more or less the sense that truth tends to emerge from debate). A good defense lawyer will try to get the lightest sentence they can for their client even if that defense lawyer thinks their client is guilty and deserves to get a harsh sentence.
Philosophers sometimes do the same as a consequence of dialogue and debate, but history and experience shows us that what is more persuasive is not always more accurate or more true. That truth tends to be more persuasive than falsehood could be mere evolutionary happenstance; and since we're not caught in a dilemma where we need to make a fast and reliable decision about important matters (which is why we use courts), we can achieve more reliable standards. The pursuit of "truth" impels us toward the best standards we can derive.
This seems to make quite an epistemic leap from the evidence. What we have from history is that - what was more persuasive in the past does not always continue to be most persuasive contemperaneously. Which is most 'true' requires substantiation through one or other epistemic truth theory.
Hume took this to the logical extreme, and concluded that it's just habit.
Fully disentangling truth and persuasion is probably a very tedious affair, but suffice it to say: in so far as "truth" of whatever caliber is actually discoverable, it may differ from what is persuasive to us.
It's an admission that we might be wrong; that belief does not arbitrate truth (such as it does in a jury-case/court setting). We normally think of "philosophy" as a set of theories and knowledge-products waiting to be consumed, but there's also philosophy the solo-sport, which is a slow process that involves recognizing past, present, and possible future errors as we continuously strive toward better truth and more accurate or useful understanding. A good philosopher must access "truth" through that much longer process of substantiation rather than the immediate suasive whims of their potentially fallacious mind.
Maybe it's not persuasion per se that I'm wary of, but rather the common primitive varieties (i.e: fallacious appeals) that give me pause.
Time to thoroughly examine all the evidence seems to be the rub. Reason and evidence based persuasion takes much more time, and is much more reliable than the results of fast and loose conclusions.
This seems fair enough. If I understand what you're saying correctly, it's that we can, theoretically, discard the notion of 'truth', except perhaps as a direction, and concentrate on the far more tangible notion of the means by which we are persuaded. First glance superficial appeal is out, long-term considered assessment is in.
This is very close to my own view on the matter, which is Ramseyan in the main. Logic and reason are habits of thinking, means by which we arrive at beliefs, and they have proven themselves to arrive more reliably at useful beliefs than other habits of thinking.
Yes, and not feeding the trolls can be really difficult! :wink:
This started me thinking. What exactly is philosophy, in the sense of your words? What is it that philosophy demands of us? Is there a body of knowledge on philosophical inquiry, or on how philosophy is, or should be, practised? Is it written down anywhere? I've looked on the interweb, and surprised myself: I can't find anything along these lines. So can you, or anyone else, offer a better link than I have been able to find? Thanks. :up:
"Philosophy" can be so broad a category that I'm necessarily generalizing when I say it tends to use reason/logic/evidence as opposed to other vectors of inquiry.
These are much more common to (good) epistemology than philosophy in general, but good philosophy also tends to have good epistemic foundations. Reason and evidence are highly persuasive, but more importantly, are highly reliable means of improving understanding or predictive power (and they happen to be even more persuasive once we recognize how reliable they can be).
I think I find that surprising. :chin:
Do you think that there is one single method of inquiry that works best within all of these fields of study? "The scientific method" is actually just as poorly defined as "the philosophical method". Best we can give you are highly generalized principles like measurability, falsifiability, predictive power, explanatory power, etc... The same is true for science because we have had to to develop and refine different approaches for scientific success in disparate fields. Scientists in one field might not at all be familiar with the methods and principles that are popular in other fields.
Perhaps a golden standard that scientists and philosophers both seek is a kind of interdisciplinary reinforcement. Scientific or philosophical conclusions that have application or predictive power within many fields of study tend to be the most reliable and useful (e.g: thermodynamics), so they receive the most praise and attention.
First time I tried to cast soap in a pan. It's really large 10 cups + 4.5 to 5 lbs. of soap, 20 full size bath bars, but my friend loves them. I make the blocks of Melt & Pour soap for her in Tiggers now.
I'm here looking to make meaningful connections with people. I ordered two more pans today, one of Pinocchio, and one of Jiminy Cricket. I'm going to make all three for the fair, it's in about a month, the mental health fair. Just having them on display will be sure to delight children and adults of all ages. And then we'll raffle them off!
It's late here, thank you so much for your kind words. You're the best I've found here so far. Everyone has really been great, even the people I'm not smart enough to know don't hold my same views seem very pleasant to me.
I mentioned formal & instrumental signification in therapy group once and the clinical therapist said, "I haven't heard anything of that since college." And then he gave me an honorary degree, "Professor Dan."
At the clinic they call me "Dr. Dan; professor Dan; & Big Brother." The last was my favorite from one of the other patients.
Thanks. :up: And are you suggesting that this book tells us how to 'do' philosophy, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
You're welcome, buddy! :smile: :up: :flower: :party:
Where would this country be without this great nation of ours? Where would this country be without Cox?
When my grandad was hurt during battle and the commanding officer asked the platoon leader, "How many men do you have ready?" He responded "fourteen without Cox."
An earned title is far better than the title itself. One of the staff members when it was brought up said, "We call him Dr. Dan, it's an honorary title" but the tone of her voice suggested that what they were assigning me was somehow inferior to having gone through the appropriate channels, academia. I don't believe in academia. I believe in earned titles!
Here's funny:
"At the request of the Catholic Church, a three-day sex orgy to be held near Rio de Janeiro was cancelled last Friday. So instead I spent the weekend cleaning my apartment.
Two peanuts were walking down the street. One was assaulted." - Tina Fey
It's kind of like Kings of Leon - Sex on Fire
And that's how we should 'do' philosophy? With logic, and nothing else?
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
WTF?! <= Is that o.k. here? Funny, that's Aristotle. Just read that on Wikipedia anyway.
The fact is that our experience presents us with truths serially in time. As far as the physical world is concerned, we have no absolute guarantee that the system state we observed in past, and to which our knowledge is adequate (=true) is relevant to the current system state. - Google (not Bing) Logical Propagators.
Long Version
The law of conservation is about conserving energy. The law of gravity is about how objects are drawn toward each other in virtue of their mass and so on. So, by the standard analysis of intentionality and aboutness the laws of nature are definitely intentional. There is another and more specific way in which the laws of nature may be said to be intentional. They and human committed intentions are both species of what we may call logical propagators. To understand what this means we need to consider what makes a syllogism valid.
For a syllogism to be valid both of its premises need to be true at the same time. It does no good for one premise to be true at one time, and the other to be true at a different time. Suppose that we are argue that:
All in the room now can hear Mary (time specific)
John will be in the room tomorrow (time mismatch)
John can hear Mary (invalid).
Obviously this is invalid because of the temporal mismatch. Being in the room tomorrow is not the same as being in the room today. So, unless both premises are true at the same time are conclusion is invalid. Still, we can make predictions. The reason for this is that some propositions have the special property of carrying information forward in time. Such propositions are what I'm calling logical propagators. Consider for example the following line of reasoning.
All in the room when Mary speaks can hear her (Timeless).
Mary now intends to speak in the room tomorrow (Logical Propagator).
John will be in the room tomorrow (Time Matched).
John can hear Mary tomorrow (Valid).
What allows this reasoning to be valid is the fact that Mary now intends to speak in the room tomorrow. This proposition carries information from today into tomorrow and is what I'm calling a logical propagator. There are only two examples of logical propagators that I can think of. The first is committed human intentions like Mary's intention to speak tomorrow, and the 2nd is the laws of nature which allow us to use information on the present state of a system to predict it's future state. Thus, human committed intentions and the laws of nature are generically similar being the only two species in the genus of logical propagators. - Dfpolis (contributor here) #22 The Mind Body Problem (YouTube video).
It is funny to me because COX means Christ. The Captain of our Salvation. Here's my dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux. The God haters are shooting at the wrong target. https://riversandlands.org/mt-rubidoux-peak-campaign-2018/mt-rubidoux-history/
Less than 1/2 way down the page.
Everyone has been so nice to me here, the defensiveness will soon be a thing of the past, and you got some good jokes. Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin is super hilarious.