Never judge a philosophy by its abuse

[Alex K]

I honestly still don't know what the phrase means.

[Longhorn]

I honestly still don't know what the phrase means.

Oh come on Uncle K. It's very simple: when people who believe the same things I do are assholes, it's called an abuse of philosophy. MY philosophy, obv.

Damn Scots, they ruined Scotland!

[Kingpin]

It really boils down to this. Judge a system/philosophy by what is claimed and believed instead of the abuses purported against others in the name of said philosophy/system. Those abuses are the actions of the individual alone and not the system.

Anyone can take a philosophy or system and choose to interpret it in such a way to cause harm against others. We've seen it in history and still today.

[robvalue]

I may have already said this, but here goes:

This is what I'd consider an abuse of philosophy. I know I'm dealing with a person or group of people who are not very well trained in logical thinking. I want to get them to agree with me, for my own benefit. I use arguments I know to be fallacious, but which I suspect will sound impressive and convincing to the current audience.

If you can get paid to do this, you are now WLC.

[Edwardo Piet]

EVF why don't you give an example of a philosophy that is unfairly judged because of its abuse, if you haven't already?

Epicurianism. People think it's all about mindless pleasure seeking and hedonism, the modern meaning of the word has even since been twisted to just mean self-indulgene. It's more about having good friends, especially like minded people - and other worthwhile things.

Modern usage and misconceptions[edit]
In modern popular usage, an epicurean is a connoisseur of the arts of life and the refinements of sensual pleasures; epicureanism implies a love or knowledgeable enjoyment especially of good food and drink—see the definition of gourmet at Wiktionary.

Because Epicureanism posits that pleasure is the ultimate good (telos), it has been commonly misunderstood since ancient times as a doctrine that advocates the partaking in fleeting pleasures such as constant partying, sexual excess and decadent food. This is not the case. Epicurus regarded ataraxia (tranquility, freedom from fear) and aponia (absence of pain) as the height of happiness. He also considered prudence an important virtue and perceived excess and overindulgence to be contrary to the attainment of ataraxia and aponia.[11]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

[Whateverist]

Now you owe royalties to Cath-y.  Poop is her domain, well, one of them.

[Whateverist]

I think that it is wise advice.  

Essentially, it is isolating the individual from the philosophy, and that a failure to execute the concept is not a failure of the philosophy. It is also saying that you cannot judge the philosophy by someone who is not adhering to it.

I think there is another concept, which goes along well with this, I see often not followed in discussions.  I wasn't familiar with it by name, until this recent year.

Principle_of_charity

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational 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."

Neil L. Wilson gave the principle its name in 1958–59.

In a debate, the goal is to win, but ultimately the goal is truth.  I think that this is a good philosophy in that regards (even if I don't always successfully fulfill it.)

I think you make an excellent point and present it well.  Around here we often complain of being straw manned but nonetheless attack dumbed down versions of other people's points.

[Whateverist]

Um...define truth pls? ._.

Truth is an abstract, perfect truth is unquestionable, it can't be argued or examined.

I strongly disagree.  Truth is a characteristic of language which describes the fit between the way things stand and what one says.  That's it.  Truth is nothing in itself.

[Whateverist]

I will always judge a religion by the abuse it has allowed.

Notice that I substituted philosophy for religion?  

Good.

Any kind or organization that allows abuse in its own system while continually trying to cover it up is not worthy of any respect whatsoever.

Case closed.

Excellent exposition of Roadrunner's principle of charity .. by way of its complete absence.

[Whateverist]

Yes, but who decides what is perfect truth?

Each of us. But serviceable truth is usually sufficient.

And does it coincidentally align with his best interests?

Depends on what you want from truth. It can be as little as a carefully selected subset of observations which fits a belief you hold dear. Or as much as a need to live in the world as you find it.