Philosophy discussion

Commonly, speaking with people is difficult to the point of despair for me, and this problem has only grown worse the more rational I have become and the more I have come to focus on what we are speaking about in conversation.

Being very talented with language, I can spot fairly easily when I am thinking that my interlocutors rarely have any knowledge of what they are saying—rather, they converse by stringing together often incongruous though confidently casual assertions. Being also a very blunt person and overly eager to open my big mouth, I have occasionally made the mistake of making the others' ignorance explicit, which, as you can imagine, gets me called several names, the commonest of which is "condescending". Even when I don't draw out my companions' ignorance into the open, trying to understand what a conversation is about—by asking what something means, returning to things that were said long ago in order to clarify them or demonstrate how they contradict something said recently, etc.—I often find myself the last man standing, my companions having ducked out pouting, even offended, at my probing.

I wonder if any of you here has had such an experience, and how he has handled it.

I want firstly to be able to present myself more favorably to people, such that they participate in conversation with me as partners or even combatants rather than captives; but least of all do I want to ignore the reason of the speech in order to do so: in fact, I want to learn how to become more rational in conversation, as my mind, though deliberate and powerful, is slow and forgetful. It is training in actively reasoning that I seek, and given my slowness I think the best way to hone such a skill is in speech.

My request is pretty open-ended: weigh in if you have anything that might be of help or if I need to clarify my situation to make helping easier.

First post for me on goodreads.

The main critical advice I can give you is know your audience. Are they serious about the topic of discussion? Or are the "shooting the breeze"? I went through the same stage a few months back, so I believe I have some insight that can help.

Again, know your audience, do they want to dig deeper? Do they critically think? Are they readers? If you answered no to any of these you may want to find more stimulating friends, or be ok with talking about the "weather".

What really turned my social aspect around was the use of witty banter. The more knowledge you have the more humorous you can be to yourself and others. Don't be afraid to throw out a joke you don't think anyone will get. People will surprise you, not to mention you'll meet new people and have an instant bond through a joke, fact, play on words others don't get.

So be funny! But with smart, well thought out jokes. This will help with you social skills as well as ease group dynamics.

I hope this helped!

I can relate to what you are saying and maybe I can suggest something that you find helpful.

It seems to me, that you are focused strongly on one aspect of language: the semantic content, or "What" is being said - which is also very common in the philosophy of language.

However, this sometimes tends to hide another aspect - no, not the "how" something is said, but what one DOES by saying something. This is called the pragmatic aspect or the realm of speech acts.

Now, if Person A wants Person B to listen to her, and Person B starts correcting mistakes, showing contradictions etc. even if Person B is correct, that might be interpreted by A as not listening, not respecting As expressive space.

Of course, if A and B share the common assumption, that being corrected is always good, because thereby one learns and grows, that might not be a problem. But if A and B do not share this common assumtion, corrections might be interpreted as degrading ("you are wrong!", "you are dumb").

Here is an article on speech act from the Stanford encyclopeadia:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spe...

The classic in the field is John L. Austins "How to do things with words"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674...

Sorry, if you know all this already, but maybe I am pointing in a helpful direction.

Wow already great points and well spoken. I'll try to add a bit if I can.

First and foremost, as Miles pointed out know your audience. Is it you and one other person, two people, hundreds? In the case of a large audience, where the speaker has little feedback, a discourse is most effective. If on the other hand you are speaking with only one other person and english is their second language, then you can be assured defeat (using the same method). From what I gather in your post, you have only one way of speaking with others. That way might be good in a large audience, but poor to communication between two people. Of course this is debatable within context such as philosophical debates.

So what you should focus on is improving your ability to communicate effectively with another individual. Many people think of the 'golden rule'-that is do unto others... Yet that rule doesn't work all the time because not everyone wants to be treated the same. For example, would you wish to be consistently corrected, antagonized by impropriety, or other hostile forms, when you wish only to deliver the message? In fact think of it empathically. Additionally, every person loves that which is like them, and thus love themselves the most. If you concentrate on what and not who, then you automatically lose half of the message.

In a bit of irony, and this may sound like I am attacking you but its nigh impossible to avoid bringing it up, but if you are missing the nonverbal cues from people then you aren't as good at language that you wish you are. Such an analogy can be a person who states they are a law abiding citizen yet consistently goes over the posted speed limit. Nonverbal communication is of course often an involuntary reaction of an individual and usually cues on how they will say something; aggressive, pleasing, etc. So while you might be good at language in it's written form, being able to uncover poor rhetoric, you miss language in the spoken form. Of course this could be disputed. But I hold firm that this is the truth, because when people speak it is their mind, opinions, bodies and every other nuance which shapes their statement. Words cannot be taken in a vacuum. If this weren't true, we would get the same encounter from an email as we would from a face-to-face conversation. In fact, most of the time when we read emails, we visualize the person or hear their voice in our minds.

There is a saying that goes something like "treat everyone the same, by treating everyone differently." Treating everyone the same in accordance with the golden rule (ie treat everyone to the same standards you hold) is social suicide. Now in practice, try to abstain from correcting people, gather the whole story and take into consideration the person's intentions of what they mean. I used to be told I do the same thing (and still can if I wish). If you can, start hanging out with people who don't speak english as a first language and it may help with self restraint in regards to this.

Very well thought out post! Nicolas thanks for the link I will have to look into it.

I sometimes get frustrated when talking to others, especially those that hold onto their ignorance. My golden rule is to be nice to others. I try to approach each person with empathy--understanding. I will correct others, but always with respect.

Some suggestions - Try active listening. Stop and focus on what the other person(s) are saying without interruption. If you are unclear of the person's meaning, then paraphrase back to that person what you thought you heard. Ask questions to gain more clearity. When you feel you understood what ther other person said, produce a well thoughtout response.

There are all kinds of reasons we communicate with others:

1. Expressing emotions and feelings (e.g. happiness, sadness, anger, joy).

2. Asking questions--arguably the most important reason to communicate.

3. Providing information--sharing what you know.

4. Presenting arguments to support your beliefs (in the epistemological sense).

These are some reasons, but certainly not all.

Remember--always try to respect the other person, avoid aggessive styles of communication, provide extra information for the other person's benefit, and work to prevent or limit misunderstanding.

Timothy: Good point about the importance of nonverbal communication.

Miles: Humor is almost always welcomed where it is appropriate.

I would define a discussion as "good" if everybody walks away from it slightly more enlightened, knowledgeable, or enriched in some other way. To achieve this would sort of be my goal - if I see that this goal cannot be achieved, the social interaction in which i find myself has no real point. So perhaps the answer is simply to re-define the goal? And of course, "ignorance" is an elusive concept - the presumed ignorance of others may be my own...