pam-mentations.com

(Excerpt from my archives, here referring to the back and forthing in philosophical argumentation.)

…As philosophers, our professional duties include calling each other out on the use of ad hominens, but in so doing we need be careful not to deploy them ourselves.^.1

[footnote1] This back and forthing process can get quite heated and lends itself to the description some have of philosophy as combative camaraderie or intellectual blood sport. Some dislike the heat and think philosophy ought to be more like a conversation, a calm and civil exchange. (Arguing about how philosophy ought to be done is also part of philosophy.)  

While this latter notion is a nice ideal, it’s not always realistic and is not warranted in all cases. Sometimes a little provocation is required to bring something obscure to the forefront. But too much provocation can itself obscure issues or shut down constructive dialogue.    

When humans work things out together, in philosophy and even, perhaps especially, among our nearest and dearest, the discourse is sometimes conversive and sometimes combative. Some personalities and styles will clash, others will click. We just have to live with these sorts of things. Just as some thrive in the quiet, others thrive on challenge and excitement. Adapting the two styles in order to effectively engage with each other is a process of ongoing negotiation as to what each can bear. If one is too quiet, she’ll be ignored, if another is too intense, he’ll be ignored. And then each will complain about being ignored.