I would only add, both to the principle of charitable interpretation and to St. Ignatius presupposition @gpl brought, that these practices only make sense when you suppose a well-meaning...
I would only add, both to the principle of charitable interpretation and to St. Ignatius presupposition @gpl brought, that these practices only make sense when you suppose a well-meaning interlocutor that is bound by logic at least in some level.
When it is abundantly clear that the interlocutor is not well-meaning and unbound by logic (i.e., a troll), the correct course of action is to cease all communication.
In the case of a well-meaning interlocutor that is unbound by logic (i.e., a psychotic), the correct course of action would be a combination of listening without giving credence and seeking professional help.
See also St. Ignatius' Presupposition, which he viewed as important enough to include at the beginning of his Spiritual Exercises:
See also St. Ignatius' Presupposition, which he viewed as important enough to include at the beginning of his Spiritual Exercises:
In order that both he who is giving the Spiritual Exercises, and he who is receiving them, may more help and benefit themselves, let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor's proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.
This principle greatly benefits civil discussion, but is rarely used on the internet. I feel that in practice Tildes already follows it, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit. I considered posting...
This principle greatly benefits civil discussion, but is rarely used on the internet. I feel that in practice Tildes already follows it, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit. I considered posting this on ~tildes (it might be a good addition to Tildes' philosophy document), but I think it has broader connotations. Mods: feel free to move it there if you consider it more convenient.
From the link:
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."
It's in the docs, actually. Linked to the same wikipedia article.
It's in the docs, actually. Linked to the same wikipedia article.
For example, having low tolerance for people that consistently make others' experience worse. Nobody (except trolls) hopes to get abuse in response to their posts, so there's no reason to allow that kind of behavior. If people treat each other in good faith and apply charitable interpretations, everyone's experience improves.
I would only add, both to the principle of charitable interpretation and to St. Ignatius presupposition @gpl brought, that these practices only make sense when you suppose a well-meaning interlocutor that is bound by logic at least in some level.
When it is abundantly clear that the interlocutor is not well-meaning and unbound by logic (i.e., a troll), the correct course of action is to cease all communication.
In the case of a well-meaning interlocutor that is unbound by logic (i.e., a psychotic), the correct course of action would be a combination of listening without giving credence and seeking professional help.
See also St. Ignatius' Presupposition, which he viewed as important enough to include at the beginning of his Spiritual Exercises:
That is wonderful.
This principle greatly benefits civil discussion, but is rarely used on the internet. I feel that in practice Tildes already follows it, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit. I considered posting this on ~tildes (it might be a good addition to Tildes' philosophy document), but I think it has broader connotations. Mods: feel free to move it there if you consider it more convenient.
From the link:
I would like to think that Tildes is founded on this principle. I mean that sincerely.
It's in the docs, actually. Linked to the same wikipedia article.
Thanks for finding that.