Some theist/non- or anti-theist discussions are dead ends. This depends on the individuals. Some people seem very content to have discussions where they do not engage with the ideas and arguments of the other person. This may work for them. A philosophical discussion for them may be to state opinions, dismiss ideas, make broad statements, appeal to authority - theists and ironically non-theists alike can be like this. What for you seems like a dead and useless discussion, where they do not actually engage with your ideas, may well be for them something pleasurable or useful. It may reinforce their sense of rightness and their ‘correct assessment’ of the craziness of ‘the ones who do not realize the truth’. Sometimes both sides may well enjoy the same non-discussion and each feel like Winners.
But for those who get frustrated, a challenge: how can you find such conversational partners useful or enjoyable?
How can you make use of someone who doesn’t respond to the Points you make or make it clear they even understand them?
This is a metatopic. I want you to take a step back from the dead end and the blame, however justified, and see if there are ways to make this more win win.
I do not have some specific answer or Think I know the secret. I may come in with some suggestions, but right now all I have is the challenge.
I’m having a dead-end argument with an atheist over at philosophyforums, and it indeed “reinforces my sense of rightness and my correct assessment of the craziness of those silly atheists”
but I can’t imagine these debates being meaningful in the end; I think I’ve only further convinced my opponent that religion is insanity.
now a debate between theists and legitimate agnostics, could actually serve some purpose.
I think we have to want to engage in discussions rather than just comment on what people have said. It requires a constructive attitude, perhaps even the “kenosis-attitude” of those spiritual traditions which value the “beginners mind” or “holding others higher than oneself” - that is a challenge.
It depends really on what is being said. If it is just a two-liner saying that the other is stupid, or someone is explaining long and broad something that has already been shown to be immature, it becomes difficult. I think that it would be better for a PM instead of trying to show oneself to be superior on the main thread.
Now that is a challenge, because there is nothing to connect to and the question is whether we have enough time for pedagogy .
I think it is a good subject to address, probably especially here rather than in some general Forum, since these problems seem to be a particular problem with religion and spirituality, where emotion plays such a role in what people write.
So, utilizing the situation as a spiritual mill for yourself - in addition, likely, to being compassionate towards the other person, despite and because of their behavior. How is that working for you?
I suppose the primary dynamic I am thinking of is a bit more subtle than this. The person appears to respond, but a closer look reveals they are not really responding to what is being said, but rather arguing against the category they Think the other person is in, and/or repeating their own position, reasserting it. I find this harder to ignore than insults. The latter have less pretense. I have not had good experiences with PMs where I Think the other person has a very different notion of what a philosophical discussion actually is. At least the satisfying ones were hardly what would be classed as Kenosis, if you know what I mean. Have PMs on your part actually led to a better in thread discussion?
I have once or twice noticed that without any acknowledgement some pedagogic work on my part has improved the way a person responds. But it is the exception.
Yes. And I appreciate that you managed to answer in a way that kept the thread appropriately placed in Religion and Spirituality. I even learned a new term ‘Kenosis’ in that field.
Have you had positive experiences doing that? I notice that you often mention to religious people - perhaps especially on the more fundamentalist end - that you have been their yourself. I haven’t really followed how this is taken by them. Does it soften the dialogue?
I can relate this the will to power. It usually isn’t clear where twtp factors into constructive debates, because both sides are giving and receiving. The wtp of the type of debater you criticized is immediately clear; he wants to win this power struggle with you - never mind the long term goals he might have for his wtp and how those small victories affect it.
So the questions are do you want to get involved in that particular power struggle and if so what would you define as a victory. One way is to argue until they stop debating, then you can possible assume they gave up, rather than having found something better to do. Or you can appeal to others. People don’t seem to take sides on ilp very often, so if one does take your side then that has specific value. The best way though is to get them to talk themselves in a corner or inadvertently admit to your argument or address one of the inconsistency you brought up.
Normally I am able to respond in that way, but I have my limitations. The committment that we would normally show towards people you are face-to-face with is weakened by the relative anonimity of the internet. I admit that people who show themselves to be persisitent in their folly lose interest for me and can even become a nuisance, and I start imagining an intention that I do not really know exists.
In a few cases I have been able to achieve a better relationship with people but I confess that it hasn’t been a habit for some time now. Often, when I have done it that way, people have appreciated the fact that I haven’t embarrassed them. A few were even angry, misunderstanding my attempts to communicate. I was less inclined the more my daily tasks took up my time and I was only able to respond in the evening or early in the morning.
Always a pleasure, I find this kind of enquiry far more interesting than theorising, since I am convinced that religion and spirituality is more about kenosis of some kind than about various beliefs, which seem generally to be more about the language or symbols used as metapher or analogy. I have learnt a lot on this forum over the years although a few times I turned my back and refused to discuss at all and turned towards practise. Friends and curiosity often got the better of me though …
I have certainly encountered this, but I Think, actually, there is a big self-relation factor going on. I Think some of these guys actually do not even see what they are Reading. Their need is so strong for it to be something they know how to respond to or can easily dismiss, having Heard it all Before, that their relationship to me is secondary to rapidly placing something in the out box. This can be reassuring, this can Control anxiety, this may even up old debts, whatever, but it feels primarily protective. Now this can also be seen as a will to Power thingie. But I Think it is more defensive pretending to be offensive.
This is certainly sometimes the urge and/or can rapidly become part of the urge behind later posts.
I did this once in another forum. I simply decided I would never stop. I was not mean. But I was very blunt and I just never stopped. Finally the other guy gave up. I doubt it was worth it, but it surprised me and I learned something: sometimes people give up. Of course maybe he got hit by a bus.
I do Think people take sides fairly often, but perhaps not as openly as Yo, X, I agree with Y about how you are wrong.
This does happen, but generally with people who are not in the category I mean.
Sure. For me Kenosis is not the goal. My spirituality is more about accepting my own reactions. IOW start working outward instead of what I would call sacrificing the inner for the outer. There may however be elements of something more traditionally religious, given that I am shocked as if slapped when they repeat the patterns. I may have a nicer approach than I realize.
What changed the habit? Does it reflect a change in spirituality?
I’ve noticed how much non-theists Think that religion is primarily about beliefs, rather than practice and relationship. Of course the monotheisms have some responsibility for this misunderstanding.
I Think we might all need to look at that curiosity.
I suppose it isn’t the end-goal of personal development, but it is a necessary step if spirituality isn’t just something exclusive and hidden away, but visible in our everyday interaction. I am sure that my sitting has a very clear effect on my workers, neighbours, friends and family, and the insights I receive along the way help me master life in a way that isn’t (too) hypocritical. Hypocrisy is all around and when we fall into the traps we have to know that it isn’t easy in a deeply hypocritical environment. It comes up in meditation and contemplation - I have been know to suddenly have red ears when I realise my imperfection. Perhaps a little like the slap you spoke of.
It is more of a sign of lack of time really. I have a long day with very many conversations with people with various health problems, with people who have guilt problems, and of course many with money problems. Alongside that I have a 24/7 Institution to run, and workers who have a lot to do with the disolution of lives, death and suffering. I sometimes resent the time people take from my day for some petty problems.
yes, it is very dominant and even the theists misunderstand their traditions.
I have always been curious and it has meant that I have received a few dents here and there because of it.
Perfection is not on the table for me. I am not even sure the Word is useful in reference to humans, unless it is used for a kind of whole grasping of the person that is glad about what it finds.
OK
Oh, well if that’s all the curiosity is, the curiosity of say, a Child, a few dents is not a failure.
