Engaging Others
While I have certainly been guilty of breaking my own principles in this respect, there are some that I try to adhere to that make for more fruitful exposition of things philosophical or when one is actively arguing premises.
Firstly, argumentation does not mean you are fighting others. It is merely the sound and reasoned conversation that is attempting to reach a logical and civil conclusion. In some sense, that is already implying a standard or ethic whereby one engages others. To merely slam those who we do not agree with or who do not agree with us in a personal attack (ad hominem) is not good form and should never be part of an argument. Rarely do examples of personal behavior or the lives of others have any relevance in philosophical engagement, so I avoid it like the plague. A premise should have its own "proofs" and should not rely on destroying the character of other people. Ideas have meaning, but they are nothing without people to consider them and put them into practice. Only a group of "yes men" need to slander their perceived opposition, because they are convinced already and in all reality are not open to civil discussion of any concepts. I disengage from people that are merely trying to argue with you, in the negative sense, by falsely using the principles of argumentation to show that everything you said is a fallacy - which is a fallacy in itself, because it is not sound and civil engagement.
This leads us to another important principle: dialogue. Dialogue is the active portion of the conversation - is truly is a conversation between people and people and ideas. It is an exchange, not a diatribe or monologue. If you want to convince others of the soundness of an idea or action, then you must actively engage them. If you are preaching to the choir or attempting to destroy the opposition, that is not dialogue, that is propaganda. While propagandic exposition has its place, it should be used carefully and transparently. This is intellectually honest and openly identified propaganda can engage the hearer, because they are aware and open to the type of message being received. Dialogue is meaningful exchange, so it must be meaningful to all parties. Some of the best conversations I have ever had are one in which there was mutual respect and exchange of ideas, even though we did not see eye-to-eye. Walking away from a conversation where ideas were actually heard and all persons are satisfied that they were heard is very fruitful, even if for a future revisiting of the topic.
Lastly, even though there are many other principles that could be discussed, is idea ownership. Playing devils advocate and arguing with people merely to argue is just a ploy. We should only do so when the real motivation is to test ideas or to get people to think outside of the box. This should be done in a friendly spirit of learning and not as a mind game. Also, one should state their own ideas with ownership, as a positive truth statement or proposition. Unless you are a relativist or arguing some skeptical point of view, too much emphasis is placed these days, in my humble opinion, on couching everything as a possibility, not a claim. Even in this last sentence I qualified this as moy own opinion, but I did make it clear that it was my opinion. Why I believe that could be questioned, but the fact that I do believe it cannot be. It is well enough to state what you think. It is impossible to meaningfully engage shifting "what ifs" and "maybes" is just plain annoying and not how one makes a sound argumentation.
In closing for now, if anything, a philosopher is a person that straight-forwardly engages people and ideas in a civil and sound manner. One does not have to be trained in any way whatsoever to do this and therefore all of us can be and perhaps inherently are philosophers at heart when we are truly and honestly engaging others and their ideas or putting forth our own.
-Jeff
