A Philosopher's Ethics

[greenberg]

Says Schopenhauer in The Ultimate Stratagem (XXXVIII) of his Art Of Controversy - the art of being right:

As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one's thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.

The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool - desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace.

He lists the 38 stratagems:

Stratagems

1. The Extension
2. The Homonymy
3. Generalize your Opponent's Specific Statements
4. Conceal Your Game
5. False Propositions
6. Postulate What Has To Be Proved
7. Yield Admissions Through Questions
8. Make Your Opponent Angry
9. Questions in Detouring Order
10. Take Advantage of The Nay-Sayer
11. Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
12. Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
13. Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
14. Claim Victory Despite Defeat
15. Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
16. Arguments Ad Hominem
17. Defense Through Subtle Distinction
18. Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
19. Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
20. Draw Conclusions Yourself
21. Meet him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
22. petitio principii
23. Make Him Exaggerate his Statement
24. State a False Syllogism
25. Find One Instance to The Contrary
26. Turn The Tables
27. Anger Indicates a Weak Point
28. Not The Opponent
29. Diversion
30. Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason
31. This is Beyond Me
32. Put His Thesis Into Some Odious Category
33. It Applies in Theory, But Not in Practice
34. Don't Let Him Off The Hook
35. Will is More Effective Than Insight
36. Your opponent by Mere Bombast
37. A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
38. Become Personal, Insulting, Rude

What should be the ethics of someone who engages in philosophical discussion?

[redarmy11]

#25 - Find One Instance to The Contrary - is valid in certain contexts. No, I can't think of an example just now, but you know I'm right. The rest are just bullshit and not worth addressing (how you can expect me to is beyond me).

[greenberg]

#25 - Find One Instance to The Contrary - is valid in certain contexts. No, I can't think of an example just now, but you know I'm right. The rest are just bullshit and not worth addressing (how you can expect me to is beyond me).

The listed stratagems are IMO mostly low blows and cheap shots that can get one to win a debate, the one using them counting on the opponent to refuse to stoop so low as to use them as well.

As such, these stratagems are good examples of something I think a person with intellectual and philosophical ethics should not do. So in this sense, Schopenhauer's stratagems are about a philosopher's ethics - only negatively defined.

What about a positively defined intellectual and philosophical ethics?


For example -

Don't take on an opponent weaker or stronger than yourself.

[greenberg]

Hm. The ethics of engaging in philosophy aren't an interesting topic?

[Avatar]

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

-William Blake

[Gustav]

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=492032&postcount=8

[greenberg]

Gustav,

But do you agree with Schopenhauer's Stratagems? Do you think they are something one should employ?

[Sarkus]

But do you agree with Schopenhauer's Stratagems? Do you think they are something one should employ?

Clearly his strategems are those employed by the very people he wishes NOT to argue with.
They are counter to his earlier comment:
e.g. "to appeal to reason and not to authority" is stated in the text you quote, and yet strategem 30 says: "Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason".

Most are also just the obvious logical fallacies:
Appeal to Authority, Strawman, False Premise, Red Herring etc.
So clearly these are what to avoid.

Personally I think Aristotle had it spot on.

But these strategems are worth remembering when discussing with any number of people on this site. It might be worth (for a laugh if not as a means of constructive criticism) dissecting someone's "argument" merely in reference to specific strategems.

[Grantywanty]

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

-William Blake

Lovely.

[Grantywanty]

[*]The Extension[*]The Homonymy

I don't know what is meant by these two.

[*]Postulate What Has To Be Proved

This seems to be OK in some instances.[*]

Yield Admissions Through Questions

?

[*]Make Your Opponent Angry

I would add 'intend' to make your opponent angry. Though I must confess to having done that also.

[*]Take Advantage of The Nay-Sayer

Don't understand.

[*]Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition

This seems unavoidable, though I can see where it can be abused if one consciously is being slippery.

[*]Draw Conclusions Yourself

from what they have said, I assume. This seems allright though with some sense of tentativeness, I guess. Perhaps I don't understand this one.

[*]Find One Instance to The Contrary

I agree with Gustav on this one.

[*]Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason

Which has always seemed OK if the methodology of the authority is 'approved' and or their 'expertise' is approved. This may seem obvious in a debate where one side quotes the Bible, but gets hazier with issues like Global Warming - say ten years ago.

What should be the ethics of someone who engages in philosophical discussion?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, adding flexibility around cultural relativism.

I doubt I have lived up to any model I would put forward. If we are thinking of participation in Sciforums then to me it is a broader interaction than a philosophical discussion. It is a series of encounters with other people and a portion of that is a philosophical discussion. And in that set of encounters I allow myself much greater freedom than I would in a pure philosophical discussion, whatever that is. I have had some, I suppose, but they are rare. I felt at times on the extreme skepticism thread it was like that for me and in a few other places - for some sustained period that is - and perhaps there I lived up to a model I might put forward.

[greenberg]

I don't know what is meant by these two.
...

In the text linked to, Schopenhauer discusses each stratagem.
I am presuming the posters here are familiar with his Euristics - The Art of Being Right.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

I find this tricky because it implies that a person will only understand if spoken to in the same language he uses - ie. if it is done to them the way they do unto others.
Some of us can't get that high, or don't wish to stoop that low, in order to make ourselves understood by the other.

[Grantywanty]

In the text linked to, Schopenhauer discusses each stratagem.
I am presuming the posters here are familiar with his Euristics - The Art of Being Right.

Thanks, I probably should have gotten that.

I find this tricky because it implies that a person will only understand if spoken to in the same language he uses - ie. if it is done to them the way they do unto others.
Some of us can't get that high, or don't wish to stoop that low, in order to make ourselves understood by the other.

Good point. I guess I was thinking more in terms of intent than the details of what is written.

[Reiku]

I think perhaps the main point for any good philosopher, is to remain unbiased of any personal attatchments of any analysis of nature at large.

[greenberg]

I think perhaps the main point for any good philosopher, is to remain unbiased of any personal attatchments of any analysis of nature at large.

1. Is that possible?

2. What would be the use of it?

[Gustav]

what does "intellectual" mean to you?

/disgusted

lets take the sapien out. i alone shall retain it

[Gustav]

SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM

Conversational Terrorism

[greenberg]

SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM

Conversational Terrorism

This is great! Thanks.

I'll print it for a careful read and safe-keeping.


Edit: Reading and printing. Arrrrrrrrrgggghhh! I could climb the walls with my nails when I read that sort of stuff!
But alas, being outraged is not enough.

[Grantywanty]

SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM

Conversational Terrorism

These were both great little resources. Thanks G.

[Grantywanty]

What should be the ethics of someone who engages in philosophical discussion?

They should respect the mode through which another person is approaching knowledge in a discussion.

Greenberg seems conscious of what he is seeking in a thread and is aware that other people have other purposes and modes of inquiry and he tries to work with and around these sometimes conflicting interests. I think this is commendable.

I have encountered others who, for example, treat an exploration of ideas as a failure to perform a rigorous formal argument and found myself attacked repeatedly, while the other person also said things that I found interesting for my exploration. Not really taking a step back and seeing the problem I continued until I felt rather unpleasant - take that in a variety of possible meanings.

On some threads, notably the skepticism thread, I found that my urge to explore was respected and others worked around or with me depending on their needs and interests. I'd like to emphasize: around me or with me.

I certainly do sometimes wonder how useful I am at rigorous, rational thinking. I still hope and actually think I can contribute despite my failures there.

If I put forward a pernicious view, well, that's a different case, have at me.

[greenberg]

what does "intellectual" mean to you?

"Intellectual" is a complex concept, so you'll need to be more specific in regard to which context you wish to speak about it.

And I don't know where you're heading with this connection to the Milgram experiment.

lets take the sapien out. i alone shall retain it

You speak in riddles!