Global Politics, Gaming Reviews, Kant in Space, Social Life and Rodent News

[tcpip]

Scotland has had an election which has seen a plurality to the SNP. The Socialists in the upcoming French Presidential elections have received a late boost with the leader of the far-right, Le Pen, calling for a "mass absention" and the centrist François Bayrou declaring he will not vote for the right-wing candidate, Sarkozy. Australia however retains the title of the nation with perhaps the most idiotic politicians in the OECD with Bill Heffernan declaring that Deputy Labor Leader, Julia Gillard is unfit for public office because she is "deliberately barren".

In the parallel reality in RPG.net they've had a Superheroes week; not my favourite genre but any stretch of the imagination, but nevertheless did reviews for the first Superhero RPG, Superhero 2044 (with the lowest possible rating) and DC Heroes. In a comparison of tough fantasy scenarios, have also recently reviewed AD&D's Tomb of Horrors and RQ's Snake Pipe Hollow. I would love to expand the latter into a larger setting, but the way licensing has been set up RQ3e/Glorantha is sadly as dead as the dodo.

Interrupting my normal life, has been a rather significant debate on philosophy, where I was challenged with the new community rule kumite over Kant, causation and space-time. This has led to a follow-up post on causation in science and I have just posted on discourse ethics and 'kumite' and rephrased the questions concerning Kant, space-time and mathematics.

On May Day attended Keating! The Musical with tabouli, ananas2003 and caseopaya. Quite good, great musical parodies although some of the humour was a bit amatuer. The setting, the Comedy Theatre, is full of old-world charm. In rodent news; Vagabond has declined significantly over the past few weeks, apparently suffering from what I suspect is osteoarthritis. He's ridiculously happy with all the extra affection he's getting, but his movements are slow and of very modest distances. He turned on the charm for ser_pounce and hathhalla who visited on Friday night for an eve of fine Indian food and the delights of Munchkin Cthulhu.

Comments

[mr-figgy.livejournal.com]

Kumite... is where I put on a pad helmet, gloves, footgear, shinguards and groin cup and then go get the crap kicked out of me by someone fifty pounds heavier. I have a tough time reworking that for philosophical discussion, unless you're in the Orcish Philosophy Guild--where, after the argument, counterargument, and counter-counterargument, they draw weapons and enter a melee, and may the gods grant victory to whoever is right.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Personally I think kumite is profoundly ridiculous is a genuine philosophical debate. In the dialogue, one is trying to have themselves shown to be incorrect. That would be the equivalent suicide in a argumentative brawl.. In other words, the request is not to be philosophical.

[mr-figgy.livejournal.com]

I also don't see how a "verbal ass whomping" really convinces anyone of anything. It rules out people holding on to what they believe for reasons as simple as spite. Bitterness and spite toward the rude person who you think isn't treating your point of view fairly. In my opinion, people have the extraordinary ability to cling to ideas, or to pretend to espouse different ideas until they can find some way to avoid or get rid of the ad hominem arguer.

Also... this is an Internet forum, yes? I always thought of a true appeal to force as something which occurs in person--where you can physically hurt others. What's the equivalent on a 'Net forum? "Agree with me or I'll hack your computer"? "Agree with me or I'll call you funny names"? "I can figure out where you live"?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I also don't see how a "verbal ass whomping" really convinces anyone of anything.

Well no. People are convinced by reasons (or physically forced into compliance).

What's the equivalent on a 'Net forum?

Expulsion, the censoring of expressions etc.

[celsa.livejournal.com]

A saying I've heard in a few places and variations... "You can't reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into"

What a person *believes* is not drawn entirely from rationality, but also from emotion. Addressing emotion with reason can be done, but it takes time, the outcomes are unpredictable and where there is resistance, even if you crush every one of their rational arguments you will not change what they feel. But you will cause them distress.... hardly worth the effort.

Of course, if they are bludgeoning others with their beliefs, it may be necessary, but be careful that they and their allies do not perceive you as the bludgeoner...

Ah, nevermind me...

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Of course, if they are bludgeoning others with their beliefs, it may be necessary, but be careful that they and their allies do not perceive you as the bludgeoner...

This is sound advice, and why I will ensure to use the Socratic dictum of ignorance in such discussions (e.g., "It would seem to me that X", or "X has said") rather than make statements of absolute fact.

[celsa.livejournal.com]

Ooh - I seem to have arrived at that approach organically somehow. Probably through being thoroughly head-slapped a lot by people who actually know what they are talking about.

As for absolute fact... I take it as given that we humans with our flawed perception don't have access to objective reality, so statements of absolute fact are a sign of rhetoric at best, or at worst, dysfunctional levels of hubris.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

In any case it's no longer relevant to this particular discussion (c.f., my reply to imajica_lj

[mundens.livejournal.com]

I know nothing of what you speak with regard to philosophy , but I suggest you need to determine which form of kumite is intended.

I'd imagine an argumentative equivalent to gohon kumite might be just as useful as a technique in training people how to think.

Also, the form of philosophical argument engaged in by Tibetan monks often looks very much like free-sparring!

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I have no poroblem with the use of formal or informal debating for their own sake. However when it is used as a mechanism to exclude it becomes problematic.