Joe

[Amy Sweet]

Joe

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Joe Wordsworth
As always, if I'm in error (and haven't, myself, acknowledged as mcuh)... I'd be delighted to see where. There are a number of questions I've asked that haven't been answered, I'd be delighted to have those answered to.

And, still, Amy seems to believe that her opinion is superior to others in that her recommendation that I just stop being argumentative altogether (that would be a polite rephrasing). However, I still don't know for sure whether that's the best idea. Surely, the opinions of others have been varied. My concern isn't for how people think of me, Luc would be wrong about that, but how best to resolve the desires of those here.

Past that, philosophy was never about introspection. That's sort of like saying psychology is the study of crazy people... just not the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What Luc said is what I meant- although I couldn't put it quite so eleqantly. I think that you are sometimes dishonest in your manipulation of Logic. I think you sometimes lecture. I think you often use Logic jargan that only a few of us understand.

No one minds when you support them with your logic because you don't have to resort to your tricks of misdirection and circular arguments. And you don't have to insinuate that everyone who disagrees with you just does't understand Logic.

I don't believe that my opinion is superior to others. I express my oppinions as oppinions and don't argue that if someone else has a different oppinion one of us must be wrong. (At least not as a general rule- I may have done it a few times when I got caught up- I'm not perfect, I do make mistakes.) I don't use Logic with a capital L to try to prove that my oppinion is right and everyone elses is wrong. At first I tried to use logic to refute your points, but usually you just point out that everyone elses logic is flawed- so this doesn't work. So I got sick of that and just started being flip and saying things like "Well, if one of us is wrong- I pick you"-- the point of that is obviously beyond you. MOre than just me thinking I'm right but pointing out the obserdity of certain situations (such as this one)

I also used to believe that you were *sincere* in not understanding why people such as I were upset with something you said or disagreed with something you said or how you apparently came to that conclusion, but after a while, we all must come to the same conclusion as Sunnie who said:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you would. Because then you could talk about how those answers are wrong, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In response to your innocent sounding:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Joe Wordsworth
As always, if I'm in error (and haven't, myself, acknowledged as mcuh)... I'd be delighted to see where. There are a number of questions I've asked that haven't been answered, I'd be delighted to have those answered to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But I no longer tend to believe that you are innocent or sincere, and thus my irritation with you. So you could stop trying to play the martyr and making me out to be the badguy just because I'm one of the few who are brave enough or stupid enough to stand up for the intellegent folks who just aren't smart enough for you and don't know were to begin to untwist your mazes of logic and big talk that proves you must be right.

I don't disagree that your a smart guy, and possibly smarter than most of the posters here (possibly). I just believe that you use your intellegence, not always for the lofty goals that you profess, but in fact to prove yourself right-- or others wrong in arguments where half the time you have no discernable position in the first place. I think that you are a show off, and intellectually dishonest. And apparently I'm not the only one.

If you want to continue this discussion, I'm going to move it over to it's own thread. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with Paganism. You can respond or let it die. Whatever works for you.

 

[Amy Sweet]

What Luc said

Why Joe gets treated like shit: A unified theory

When an illogician acts like a logician, believes himself to be right at all times, uses circular arguments, reversions to defeated arguments, and blatant misdirections in order to skew a debate in his favor, anyone with half an ounce of "give a damn" brand cough syrup will be more than slightly ticked off at the offender.

Especially when the end of a five page debate about a tiny fragment of an argument he can't defeat is shown to have looped back to what someone said in the beginning, but he couldn't admit without showing off and being lauded as a wise man.


I know it sounds like I'm disrespecting you, and yes in a way I am, but it's the damned truth. I'd say a good 12 out of 15 of your last arguments have gone exactly as I depicted above, and frankly a lot of people who aren't me are getting tired of it. That's the non-me originated backlash you are experiencing now. It is not an isolated incident, it's people (not always eloquent or logic-based) getting tired of someone trying to prop himself up without substance on the merit of one's ability to abuse logic and language to one's own ends.

Perhaps, you are incapable of change and this post will serve as another example of why all my posts should be ignored by you. Fine. It's no weight off my shoulders and I'll continue to giggle on the sidelines. But if you are earnestly worried about how so many are starting to treat you, then you might want to try an immediate deep introspection. You know, what philosophy really is all about.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So, what is the point of this thread?

 

[gauchecritic]

So, what is the point of this thread?

Although I haven't visited the pagan thread (not interested) I think the point is that your row should continue here rather than derailing there. any? some? dust? anyone? no?

 

[Amy Sweet]

Although I haven't visited the pagan thread (not interested) I think the point is that your row should continue here rather than derailing there. any? some? dust? anyone? no?

Precicely.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Ooooohhh.

I was confused because there's nothing here that relates to the substance of what was being discussed from over there--none of my points, none of the meat of the argument (that sort of isn't going on anymore, as a side note). Just paragraph after paragraph of complaining. Which, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with that.

Am I supposed to defend myself?

I don't know.

A "Joe, you suck, now change my mind about that" thread doesn't seem like a good idea. And a "Joe, you suck, and I'm part of a coallition of folks who think so" thread doesn't seem like a good idea, either. All that's likely to come out of it is me telling you that your series of assumptions are wrong and wondering, still, whose opinion I'm supposed to hold in higher regard... those who are complaining, or those who are praising.

This seems pointless unless there's something more specific to it.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Ooooohhh.

I was confused because there's nothing here that relates to the substance of what was being discussed from over there--none of my points, none of the meat of the argument (that sort of isn't going on anymore, as a side note). Just paragraph after paragraph of complaining. Which, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with that.

Am I supposed to defend myself?

I don't know.

A "Joe, you suck, now change my mind about that" thread doesn't seem like a good idea. And a "Joe, you suck, and I'm part of a coallition of folks who think so" thread doesn't seem like a good idea, either. All that's likely to come out of it is me telling you that your series of assumptions are wrong and wondering, still, whose opinion I'm supposed to hold in higher regard... those who are complaining, or those who are praising.

This seems pointless unless there's something more specific to it.

The point is, you posted, I responded. But my response (and your post) had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So I moved it here. If you want to repost some or all of your points here on this thread, feel free.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
The point is, you posted, I responded. But my response (and your post) had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So I moved it here. If you want to repost some or all of your points here on this thread, feel free.

I think they're fine where they are. But you're welcome to answer the questions/problems:

I have people that are complaining and people that are encouraging. To whom do I listen?

If I'm in error, could you show me where?

Etc.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think you often use Logic jargan that only a few of us understand.

I've never seen Joe use anything I would call "jargon" - that is, insular, exclusive language designed either to communicate with people in a specific shared field or, in its pejorative sense, to derail a conversation by moving the focus to figuring out the terms rather than the intent. On the whole it appears to me that Joe tries quite hard to keep his comments accessible and open to anyone who cares to read them. Although at times I might take a different point of view or focus, I've never found myself struggling to understand his language or feeling that he was deliberately attempting to shut out other viewpoints. Logic may perhaps be his cross, so to speak, but he is a true believer in the best sense - as adamant in his logic when it limits him as when it limits others.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Black S said,

I've never seen Joe use anything I would call "jargon" - that is, insular, exclusive language designed either to communicate with people in a specific shared field or, in its pejorative sense, to derail a conversation by moving the focus to figuring out the terms rather than the intent. On the whole it appears to me that Joe tries quite hard to keep his comments accessible and open to anyone who cares to read them. Although at times I might take a different point of view or focus, I've never found myself struggling to understand his language or feeling that he was deliberately attempting to shut out other viewpoints. Logic may perhaps be his cross, so to speak, but he is a true believer in the best sense - as adamant in his logic when it limits him as when it limits others.

Shanglan

While Joe is not heavy into jargon, he frequently violates the principle of charity. By that, I mean, being charitable in construing what the other says; putting the *best* spin on it; the opposite it to take it too literally or in some obviously defective way.

Secondly, although it's not entirely intentional, Joe generally tries to 'saddle' his discussants with particular philosophical positions, ones that he believe are well refuted. Yet that makes too much of the ordinary opinions of ordinary people. The paganism thread is a good example, in the the originator spoke of the individual latitude re beliefs and practices, absence of any one dogma. Joe eventually cast that as 'subjectivism' and accused the person of holding that whatever anyone thought was true, at least for them. He cast the Christian side as 'objectivism,' a category he espouses; of course incidentally he's some sort of Christian.

And yes, though he's better of late, there has been more or less intentional obfuscation, which is almost like the 'jargon' issue. I refer to old thread where positions about God's existence were construed as questions of his *necessary* existence, a distinction likely lost on his discussants. Similarly, against many arguments, Joe's line is 'that isn't *necessarily* true,' which the discussant is likely to misunderstand (as meaning, there are not good reasons for holding the view). Joe means that the position is not : true simply by virtue of logic and definition.

These remarks issue from some extended experience in philosophy and its teaching. I would sum up by saying I do not think it is evil, so much as ego that people are dealing with. And I think that people rightly sense that they are not really being engaged, but more provoked or played with. I don't see that as malice exactly, but rather being a bit too impressed with one's intellectual accomplishments. (True of a good many of us with academic backgrounds.) Further it should be noted that it doesn't seem to have occurred to Joe that the internet discussants are not his students, eager to be 'taught' about the intricacies of academic philosophy.

So, in sum, Joe probably has the same amount of moral gray as anyone one; his character is not black, by any means, and no worse than most of ours. But like a lawyer fresh from law school he's a bit too eager to impress with the 'tools of the trade.'

 

[Guest]

This is too silly. I've read certain posts on the paganism thread out of interest (I know nothing but for saving 'pagan babies' from my Catholic youth), particularly Cant's, Earl's and Joe's (they usually teach me something). Joe is Joe and everyone knows him by now so if you can't discuss anything with him without personal frustration or resorting to personal moral judgments, ignore him.

Perdita

 

[BlackShanglan]

Admittedly, I have not been following the paganism thread, so I won't doubt what you've said. However, I would like to address this:

While Joe is not heavy into jargon, he frequently violates the principle of charity. By that, I mean, being charitable in construing what the other says; putting the *best* spin on it; the opposite it to take it too literally or in some obviously defective way.

I do understand your point, and I agree that that can be frustrating. However, to someone working on a strictly logical base, semantics are everything. If a term is not well-defined, then any chain of reasoning built from it is faulty. I would suggest that Joe is merely trying to get people to clarify their terms - a process without which no logical debate can proceed. Yes, it can at times be tedious, but definition and clarification of terms is essential, not least because it avoids the types of problems you describe - i.e., when people use the same words to mean two different things.

Yes, I've had a conversation or two with Joe go down the semantics rabbit hole. But then, I believe that all real argumentation begins with semantics. Only a thorough understanding of our terms will allow us to come to an understanding of each other.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Black said,

I do understand your point, and I agree that that can be frustrating. However, to someone working on a strictly logical base, semantics are everything. If a term is not well-defined, then any chain of reasoning built from it is faulty. I would suggest that Joe is merely trying to get people to clarify their terms - a process without which no logical debate can proceed.

Well that sounds very pedagogic, even Socratic. It's often not.

Yes, it can at times be tedious, but definition and clarification of terms is essential, not least because it avoids the types of problems you describe - i.e., when people use the same words to mean two different things.

In the best discussions, the principle of charity is followed. If you've been with such a 'charitable' philosopher, she or he will not say, "Well your term is entirely unclear, and taking it as xxx [a defective reading] leads to an incoherent position."

It's very similar to talking to a lawyer who's 'charitable'. If you say 'killing someone while driving drunk is murder, '' she will not simply say, "well, it's vehicular homicide, and surely you know that homicide and murder are not the same. Were they the same, then {all kinds of confusion}"

A better trained, *charitable* approach is to try to lay out the alternatives "You might be saying... ; or you might be saying..."
THEN CHOSE TO ADDRESS THE MOST PLAUSIBLE OF THEM, pending clarification.

Having spent years with academics and lawyers, I know the two 'types': the helpful ones, and the ones who are 'tripping.' I believe it's both uncharitable--*not to say unproductive*-- to involve someone in nuances, to their detriment, and in a way that does not clarify, esp. for them.

To be fair, there are many posters who do not 'listen,' and there are many 'uncharitable' ones who leap upon what they take to be some idiotic statement, when a perfectly plausible interpretation is available. In that sense there's nothing 'special' about Joes case. In another sense though, Black, I think all who have educational advantages (including you) should try to be charitable and useful, and not merely 'throw stones at' or demand 'clarifications' of and 'improvements' in the expressions of the person with less education.

 

[BlackShanglan]

A better trained, *charitable* approach is to try to lay out the alternatives "You might be saying... ; or you might be saying..."
THEN CHOSE TO ADDRESS THE MOST PLAUSIBLE OF THEM, pending clarification.

I agree that it's certainly more pleasant to take things the way people intend them, but your post suggests that one knows how they intend them. In fact, to some extent what you ask is not merely charity, but telepathy. One assumes that Joe interprets those words in the way he thinks them most likely to have been meant - which is the way I would go at any rate. I'm not sure whether by "plausible" you mean what I think the speaker most plausibly might have intended, or what I think would make the speaker's argument most plausible, but I feel that the only "charitable" method is to try to get at what s/he was trying to say.

I'm not entirely certain why there should be personal animosity attached to an innocent misunderstanding of someone's position; it happens all of the time. One simply rephrases or clarifies and continues, as indeed I have when having discussions with Joe. I can't see why this would bother anyone; it's necessary in order to communicate precisely in a language capable of great variety. To decline to ask for clarification is to assign my own meaning to someone else's words, which is both logically unproductive and socially rather rude. I would prefer to find out what that person meant. If the person with whom one is conversing appears very consistently to misunderstand one's comments - as, indeed, some people seem to - then one chooses other conversational companions.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Black: I agree that it's certainly more pleasant to take things the way people intend them, but your post suggests that one knows how they intend them.

That was not my intended meaning, at all. I said, when one doesn't know (and maybe neither does the person), one lays out alternatives; this is the first step of what you call 'clarification'.

Charity dictates that the more plausible interpretations be looked at (assessed), over the foolish readings. One may chose to postpone 'looking at,' which is fine, but is rather slow.

But if one proceeds, it's charitable to proceed--tentatively and subject to correction-- on an informed guess as to what they might mean, assuming they are capable of making sense.

(It is certainly nice, occasionally to meet someone who 'checks' something, before arguing: "As I read you, you are are saying... ; is that right?")

In any case, one wants to end with a 'reading' of someones words that they are happy with. It's quite pleasing to hear "That's what I was trying to say, you've helped put it much more clearly and exactly."

So, I have no knowledge of what someone intends, if I don't know her. I have only a text. But in the absence of such knowledge, I should assume they are not talking nonsense. (The charitable assumption, however, may sometimes be wrong!). And this by the way is not merely an ethical dictate, but a practical one.

I'm not entirely certain why there should be personal animosity attached to an innocent misunderstanding of someone's position; it happens all of the time.

I agree with this, but with some individuals, for instance those with an agenda, the 'misunderstandings' get tiresome, and where there's intelligence, I begin NOT to think they are innocent.
But intellectual clumsiness and ineptitude are always a possibility.

Indeed, maybe youre just saying something like the old saw, "Never assume malice, where foolishness can be readily ascribed!" And I agree.

Further, on the 'net, even more than in normal communication I've found this to be the rule: Every possibility of misunderstanding is going to be taken and acted on. If there's any way something can be MISconstrued, it will be. Which dictates, as you say, holding one's anger in abeyance.

 

[Liar]

Gawd you people can type alot.

#L

 

[CharleyH]

I was confused . . . . A "Joe, you suck, now change my mind about that" thread doesn't seem like a good idea.

Actually, it's rather excitingly 'switchy', and I find it quite a good idea, since I have never known Joe to suck anything. In fact, he adimittly claims to not suck. But, hell, this is as close an admission as we are likely to get. Now what exactly he sucks? This is a matter of intriguing and important debate.

 

[Guest]

any? some? dust? anyone? no?

Brilliant! That gave me a huge laugh.

Oooh, I like cake. I love cake! Cake! Gotta have cake! Cake! I love it! Cake!

Ok, it's out of my system now. Handing the thread back...

 

[Amy Sweet]

Actually, it's rather excitingly 'switchy', and I find it quite a good idea, since I have never known Joe to suck anything. In fact, he adimittly claims to not suck. But, hell, this is as close an admission as we are likely to get. Now what exactly he sucks? This is a matter of intriguing and important debate.

LOL.

Um, candy canes?

Oh- no that would be you

Hmm, I wouldn't wager a guess on this one. It's far to risky.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Gawd you people can type alot.

#L

Might you perhaps have meant to say, "Shanglan, you're a genius"?

It certainly seems plausible.



Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

It certainly seems plausible.



Shanglan

Plhorseible?

 

[Liar]

Might you perhaps have meant to say, "Shanglan, you're a genius"?

It certainly seems plausible.



Shanglan

For a pony, yer pretty cleva.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Plhorseible?

Are you saying that I'm interchangeable with an aus? How extremely uncharitable.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

i'd say you were mocking 'charitable' interpretations, but that would be an uncharitable interpretation.

 

[BlackShanglan]

i'd say you were mocking 'charitable' interpretations, but that would be an uncharitable interpretation.

*laugh* You're all right by me, Pure.


Shanglan