The Philosophy Discussion Forum

To what extent should philosophical activity be willing to be 'polite' (or, perhaps, 'tactful')? If we claim that it is often necessary to go 'behind' everyday language in order to investigate and clarify many of the ideas we tend to hold as sacred then what happens when we find ourselves, in this pursuit of clarity, to transgress social taboos?

For example: if we make the claim (which, incidentally, I am not here intending to argue) that dominance is merely a form of enslavement, and from this make the further claim that the slave-owners in the US were themselves as oppressed (by a social or economic system) as those they enslaved, what happens when we are faced with the criticism that anyone who has suffered as a result of enslavement or is part of a social group that has this as a significant part of their history would find this 'offensive'? Are we then required to withdraw our claim on this basis alone?

Perhaps, put more simply, what happens if we use an abstract language to talk about a political problem that is considered controversial and potentially volatile? Another example is the argument regarding whether paedophilia can be considered a 'sexuality'. Those opposed may argue that homosexuals have fought (and continue to fight) hard to be recognised as consenting adults within the law and as such find the idea of paedophilia being given a similar status (albeit with the stipulation that there cannot be consent) to be insulting. The claim that both are based, quite simply, upon physical attraction which itself cannot be chosen is rejected despite its philosophical legitimacy (assuming said legitimacy has not been compromised by a different counter-argument). Should we, once again, be prepared to withdraw our point because it has caused offence?

Philosophy, being a science, should be free of any limits, like tact or 'politeness'. When making a deep research of any aspect of life you must not have any boundaries to proceed.
___________
iphone development

I think that when moral issues are being discussed then one cannot avoid making a statement about how oneself feels about it.

So in order to distance oneself from slavery one can start the sentence with the words:

"Not wanting in any way to justify or excuse slave-owners it should be taken into consideration they were possibly victims of the system they were born into. It takes a whole lot of personal strength to rebel against traditinal values, ... "

I do not know if you are English, ala1993, but I always thought that the English were the leading experts in diplomacy and expressing difficult things in an inoffensive way. This is what I wanted to learn on this forum, among other things.

If there is room for improvement in my example please correct and develop it.
Sometimes saying something can be worse than not saying anything at all, so I have some doubts.

I am glad that you started this topic. I hope that many people will contribute substantially.

One strategy to be polite is to say things indirectly.
I wonder if this is possible when philosophical issues are being discussed.
Can one argue a philosophical point indirectly ?
Would it not be "beating about the bush" ?

Instead of saying that someone´s philosophical view is wrong one can say that it is right up to a point.
Or in certain contexts.

If the philosopher seems to have a weak ego it is not good to tell him plainly that he is wrong.
One can argue the opposite and hope that he will notice himself and correct his views and be grateful for not being corrected openly.

[quote=Jas post_id=100096 time=1327866916 user_id=7083]
Philosophy, being a science, should be free of any limits, like tact or 'politeness'. When making a deep research of any aspect of life you must not have any boundaries to proceed.
___________
[url=http://www.intellectsoft.net/iphone_app ... pment.html]iphone development[/url]
[/quote]

I'm the furthest thing from a defender of social niceties but they're is room for some when the alternative is chaos or merely a counter-productive waste of resources. Most of the people who believe in Truth At All Costs don't have it and simply nay-say everything, causing major unnecessary obstacles.

[quote=duszek post_id=100178 time=1327991375 user_id=3516]
I think that when moral issues are being discussed then one cannot avoid making a statement about how oneself feels about it.

So in order to distance oneself from slavery one can start the sentence with the words:

"Not wanting in any way to justify or excuse slave-owners it should be taken into consideration they were possibly victims of the system they were born into. It takes a whole lot of personal strength to rebel against traditinal values, ... "

I do not know if you are English, ala1993, but I always thought that the English were the leading experts in diplomacy and expressing difficult things in an inoffensive way. This is what I wanted to learn on this forum, among other things.

If there is room for improvement in my example please correct and develop it.
Sometimes saying something can be worse than not saying anything at all, so I have some doubts.

I am glad that you started this topic. I hope that many people will contribute substantially.
[/quote]

Having to caveat anything potentially disagreeable is a major disruption to productive thought and shouldn't be allowed, much less considered positive. In philosophy forums in particular, Everything is objectionable.

If you just focus on not being insulting, that should be polite enough.

And never use judgmental words, like “wrong”, when replying to someone’s post.

Make no reference to the author of a post.

Once you understand what someone is saying, it should be OK to disagree respectfully.