If the issue is the problem of talking past each other in a philosophical discussion and the issue isn't a misunderstanding, then it's simply not a debate, but just people saying what they want to say and not caring what others are talking about, like:

A) I want to talk here about horses.

B) I love cats. I have a cat. Many people in the Forum have cats. Have you known that? It's interesting they don't have dogs. Why is it so?

C) Dog owners are fascists.

A) But the issue was horses. Horses are big.

B) Oh I agree, C. They are fascists. — ssu

Talking past each other is an English phrase describing the situation where two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing.

If it's talking past each other, then it's a misunderstanding, namely that they're talking about the same thing. What you gave as an example could be an example of people talking past each other, although it's clearer in my example. Yours is more implicit. Technically, it doesn't rule out that the others just deliberately changed the subject, which is a different thing.

How do we know that we're using terms consistently in this thread, and that while you're talking about inconsistent term usage, I'm hearing tales of cats.

How do we know that we're using terms consistently in this thread and that while you're talking about inconsistent term usage, I'm hearing tales of cats. — Hanover

I love cats. Black Beauty is one of my favourite films.

But instead, what I've seen happen is that some people will just keep pushing their own ideas and going around in circles, and then all I end up doing is identifying the reoccurring problem while the other person just keeps pushing on. If you're either unwilling or unable to engage in a more productive way with an idea, because it clashes with an idea of your own that you won't let go off, then you should just come out and say so, and let that be the end of it. — S

I sympathize. But it's probably the case that the other side also experiences your pushing on as missing the already identified problem, while also seeing themselves as just pushing on. It gets more tricky than horses vs cats quickly.

So what's to be done?

I sympathize. But it's probably the case that the other side also experiences your pushing on as missing the already identified problem, while also seeing themselves as just pushing on. It gets more tricky than horses vs cats quickly.

So what's to be done? — csalisbury

Well, to give another example which has happened to me here recently: if I've identified where the problem seems to be stemming from, like a controversial premise, and clearly point it out, and point out that it is unsubstantiated, then it's really unhelpful to read that as something completely different, like "I want you to construct a valid formal argument containing that same controversial premise", or to think that that will do anything towards resolving the problem. The premise would need to be turned into a conclusion, with the preceding premises made explicit.

Simply incorporating that controversial premise into an argument is a bit like constructing a game of Jenga with a broken block holding it all together, so that the stack is really unstable, and then inviting me to play. Except that if I easily cause the entire stack to collapse by pulling out the broken block, then I haven't lost, they have.

Another way of responding to this that I've experienced is to constantly set aside the problems I'm pointing out, and instead to deflect the focus back on me, or to change the subject in subtle ways. That only delays the inevitable, as we end up coming back to the same unresolved problems I've previously raised, or I eventually get too distracted from the original problems I identified and they get left behind.

There's only so much I can do. I try to make these problems clear in the discussions themselves, and I try to make clear what needs to be done in order to move towards a resolution.

gotcha. I think it could be helpful to bring that experience into this thread as a kind of 'case-study' in order to pick apart exactly what went wrong.

rather your question to the other dude prompted me to inquire as to your basis in asking the question. — DingoJones

The basis is simply that person A says "I reasonably supported assertion P," because person A sincerely feels that to be the case, whereas person B says "No you didn't," because they sincerely feel that to be the case.

So now what do we do?

I think it could be helpful to bring that experience into this thread as a kind of 'case-study' in order to pick apart exactly what went wrong. — csalisbury

I like that idea. It would be good to see who is off topic by examining what each person was talking about and comparing it to the specified topic in the OP.

Just might be that several people have egg on their chins. Or mustaches.

I'll offer you an observation. You seem to require a formalism that others are not nearly as married to and it's a constant source of exasperation for you. It exhibits itself in your demands for proper grammar and spelling down to a wish that everyone be educated in every logical fallacy so that discussion can proceed in a certain orderly and predictable way. I'd submit that a good part of philosophical debate consists of making the many errors you point out and in debating the significance of those errors to the overall discussion, as opposed to making them the focus of the debate.

I'd also say that definitions are not brittle, so it's understandable that some will assume differing descriptions of horses and cats than others. Demanding an absolute meaning to the terms is not the starting point, but likely the ending point after the debate is over and such distinctions are made. To the extent you claim some call horses cats, I think that is obvious hyperbole, but usually the equivocation of terms is more subtle and obscured and has to be brought to light.

The basis is simply that person A says "I reasonably supported assertion P," because person A sincerely feels that to be the case, whereas person B says "No you didn't," because they sincerely feel that to be the case.

So now what do we do? — Terrapin Station

It's not a matter of feeling. It's reasonableness we're talking about here. Reasonableness is not like morality. An appeal to emotion here is itself unreasonable. It is a known fallacy.

We can use logic and our own eyes and our own brains to assess whether or not a claim is a bare assertion. If I were to publicly make the claim that one of your claims is a bare assertion, then yourself and others have the opportunity to point me to the supposed support of it, and then we can take it from there, once again using logic to determine whether or not any supposed support I might be pointed to really does support your claim.

I like that idea. It would be good to see who is off topic by examining what each person was talking about and comparing it to the specified topic in the OP.

Just might be that several people have egg on their chins. Or mustaches. — Sir2u

The discussions in question were my own discussions. You think I could have been the one going off topic in my own discussions? :brow:

They began to talk past me as soon as they tried to criticise my argument by merely assuming their own definition or premise. My argument never had that included, and I made that very clear, and I made it very clear that I rejected their definition or premise. That's where it should've ended if they had nothing else to offer. But the problem was reoccurring.

I can't be bothered to go back through pages and pages of discussion in order to find and quote what I'm talking about.

The discussions in question were my own discussions. You think I could have been the one going off topic in my own discussions? :brow: — S

The fish are starting to bite.

I specifically asked you to be polite and refrain from answering my posts. So now we know that your are not polite I suppose that I could be charitable and reply so that you do not think that I am not respectful.

Did you think that I was talking about you specifically? God forbid that I would stoop so low as to do such a thing. Did you know that vanity is one of the silent killers of the century? A billionaire died the other day just because he thought he needed a bigger dick.

But anyway time to move along. Here's another representation of an object for you to think about.



Is it really a mug, or is it really a message? Does reality allow it to be both? :wink:

Oh dear, I just remembered that I should have made some sort of a comment on the topic of your post to me. And that I should not have introduced other topics that might be considered "talking past you".

Sorry about that.

Oh dear dear, I forgot that I should really have put both of those posts together, but whatever my posts average per day needs to get higher so that I can compete in the race to win arguments in the threads.

The discussions in question were my own discussions. You think I could have been the one going off topic in my own discussions? :brow: — S

Sorry again I forgot to answer.

No.

Your humour is improving.

But only slightly.

You still have a long way...

...to go.

8.1k :party:

8.1k :party: — S

As the dead billionaire found out, more is not always better. :cool:

Oh, by the way, I found out why there is no middle finger emoticon.

Your humour is improving. — S

Sorry, I forgot to say thank you for the sarcastic nice compliment.

I agree this problem happens all the time, most of the conversations I have with you, in fact, you tell me I'm an idealist even though I argue/explain that I'm not, I didn't even realise that you were referring to at the times you first labelled me with that. I've had instances where I am guilty of making incorrect assumptions about people as well. I agree with @Hanover about the development of terminology but I also think that we interpret what people are saying in ways that include more than just what they said. That might include their tone, a connection drawn between a larger belief system, their intent and etc.

That's when we're playing with fire and it can lead to a lot of confusion. I've talked with you and the whole time you were talking to me as though I believe reality is mentally constructed. I can't imagine what your perspective of that conversation must have been like but it can't have been similar to mine.

To stop it, we must limit our dealings with only what has been said as much as possible and when we think miscommunication has occurred, being able to identify that and put a stop to it. It's not as easy to do that as it sounds, when that same miscommunication may have already produced a lot of irritation and negative feelings.

To stop it, we must limit our dealings with only what has been said as much as possible and when we think miscommunication has occurred, being able to identify that and put a stop to it. It's not as easy to do that as it sounds, when that same miscommunication may have already produced a lot of irritation and negative feelings. — Judaka

Some of us do try, unfortunately some others that consider themselves more as Oracles than participants try to force us into believing that their way is always right and that they are never wrong.

It is frustrating for some to have their ideas brushed aside without anything more of an explanation than, "I have already addressed that, you are wrong, go back and read it again, I cannot be bothered to explain, you should already know that, that is why you have to learn to use google".

But as in the thread about "Why we do jobs we don't like?", here we have the question "Why do we continue to argue with a brick shithouse?" maybe the answer is the same.
Because someone has to.

Some of us do try, unfortunately some others that consider themselves more as Oracles than participants try to force us into believing that their way is always right and that they are never wrong. — Sir2u

I should be humble like you. :rofl:

Nothing says humble like, "That's 'Sir' to you!".

I think I will have to find a bigger basket!

I should be humble like you. :rofl: — S

It certainly would not harm you to try. :smirk:

Or would it go against your very basic nature? :worry:

The Oracle has spoken and will now rest.

If anyone looks for me, tell them to piss off.
If no one looks for me, they can piss off as well

Hey folks, was that not a great imitation of someone we all know but who's name we shall not mention. :rofl:

It certainly would not harm you to try. :smirk: — Sir2u

That expression suits me better. You should use this one: :fear:

Can't you read.

I said that if no one looks for me they can piss of.
And stop being childish and going back to edit your posts.
Do what you always do and add another post.

Oh, by the way, did you happen to notice how far off topic you have taken this thread. You should be ashamed of your self.

Bonus time.