Thank you, I will.

Then it is something else. But it is not clear and to the point.

Getting back to the question of "What must happen" before a reader can know what a writer is up to.

I can give a clear example of one situation where readers can know precisely what a writer is up to.

Imagine if you will that a particular writer constantly poses questions on a public internet forum.

The questions appear to be inviting people to share their views.

However, when people respond with their views the writer of these questions then argues with their views in an attempt to assert that their views are somehow flawed or incorrect.

Let's now imagine that this is a continual behavior of this particular writer. This writer is constantly asking questions as bait to draw people into endless arguments where their views are not respected at all and all they ever get are arguments of why their views are flawed and wrong.

After seeing this behavior over, and over, and over again, the readers start to recognize that this is precisely what the writer does consistently.

So that's what "Must Happen" before the readers can know what the writer is up to.

This is why new people on an Internet forum often don't see what's going on because they don't have the previous experience of knowing what particular writers are constantly up to.

Historical behavior reveals a lot about a writer in this kind of situation.

Abra,

That is why I stick to the original question in its strictest literal sense and make a point not to assume anything.

Well, for whatever it's worth I'm in complete agreement with the views that you've been experessing.

Accusations that you have been giving 'strawman' or 'ad hominem' arguments are absurd. You're not even arguing! You're just trying to better clarify and express your views. The very accusation that your clarifications and expressions are "arguments" is entirely out of line as far as I can see.

You do not need to argue for your views. You're simply attempting to convey and express why you feel the way you do, not defend your views.

It was a question, and you gave more than an ample explanation of your views and why you feel the way you do.

That should be all that is required. You shouldn't be challenged to defend your answer to the question.

Asking you to clarify why you feel the way you do is one thing. Suggesting that your clarifications are 'strawman' or 'ad hominem' our totally out in left field.

Trying to back you into a corner to 'argue' to justify your answer to the question is just not right. You gave your reasons and they are sound reasons. That's good enough.

I think you made a perfect point about the fact that a writer is necessarily writing their own thoughts unless they are plagiarizing someone else's material.

Who can argue with that?

Thank you Abra. I also did not think I was "arguing" so I did not understand all that jazz about 'straw man.'

I considered that "knowing the reader" would be accomplished through that "repeated written conversation".

All I meant to say was, both the reader and the writer form any and all conclusions, about the other through exactly the same means - the written word.

So, all things being equal, if the writer forms any conclusions about the reader (i.e. "over confident") his conclusions cannot be considered any more valid or correct than any conclusions the reader has made about the writer.

In other words, if the writer says "you misunderstood", how does he know that the reader did in fact misunderstand. Is the writer not subject to the exact same standards as the reader?

As Jeanie said a while back, it's a two way street.

First, there is writer(intention) ===> reader(interpretation).

Then there is reader(intention) ===> writer(interpretation).

Both cycles, and both people, must have the exact same standards applied.

Jb...

For the most part, I would have to say that you have done very well in this thread with respect to giving grounds for your claims. Kudos to you. I agree with in some respects.





I agree. This may or may not hold true. I tend to think that the writing must first be read in order to weed out obvious possibilities where it does not represent the writer's thoughts, and even then it is only a reflection.

To use an analogy, it is not necessarily a mirror reflection, it could be very fragmented, like a choppy lake reflection. Hence, my hesitance in claiming that it is safe to conclude that a writing is a reflection of how the author thinks. The writing could be just a conclusion, which would not show how s/he thinks, only where they have come to in that thinking. There are plenty of other examples which could be given, but I think that you get the subtleness of my point here.



Is it safe to conclude that you will die one day? That we live on earth? That I have a hand? That I know what I am writing?

I would disagree that nothing is safe to conclude.

The term always does constitute an absolute description, yet the term exactly does not. Exactly represents accuracy or preciseness. Those are not absolutist terms. The refer to how well something - the assessment of how an author thinks in this case - corresponds to fact/actuality.



So, it is safe to say that we agree here on this point? The writing must at least be read in order to safely assume that it is not one of the obvious aforementioned exceptions(nevermind the disagreement about what those exceptions actually are, that is irrelevant here).



See above...



The source representing the actual writer's thoughts. The reflection, as I briefly mentioned earlier, is not always an accurate measure. Can we determine exactly what those thoughts actually are without too much presupposition and assumption?

I already answered that question here, (written here and in an above post.)

Yes, in order to proceed and address a specific situation ( or writing) a reader must read it.

And it is safe to assume that the writing will reflect how the author thinks.

But this does not mean that a reader would know the "exact" thoughts of the writer. That would be 'mind reading.'

James wrote...



I questioned myself on exactly how I should respond here, if at all. There is no question about what you are referring to. You are referring to me personally. You are giving your interpretation of my threads. I am disappointed in a sense, but not surprised.

In the beginning of this post you stated that you could give "a clear example of one situation where readers can know precisely what a writer is up to." Then you went on to give this description which amounts to your opinion of what you have witnessed. You never gave grounds to conclude what the writer(me in this case) was up to. Rhetoric about another person.

Just because one asks a question which is open for debate in a philosophy forum, and then does philosophy in a philosophy forum, does not make it anything other than that. Your personal remarks about me have went on long enough James. Leave it lay.

I can take the very same criticism which I give. I actually seek it out. If one chooses to argue with me about a subject, then that is there choice, they are not being forced against their will. I try to make logical assertions/refutations which abide by the well established rules of logical argument/reasoning. I make every attempt to do this in my everyday thought as well. If one counters on a completely illogical basis, then I will point it out. That is how philosophy is done. I am here to do philosophy. This is a philosophy forum.

If that is taken as if you think I am baiting people into an endless argument, that I respect that you have an opinion. Opinions, as I mentioned on the other thread mean little to me. The important thing as far as I am concerned is exactly what that opinion stands upon... what grounds it.



The interpretation of the reader reveals much as well, but I will not digress into my personal opinion of you. Please... reciprocate it! You are in no position to make any claim about what I am up to. Besides that, you are clearly breaking the rules here. Read the above, it states it clearly.

Absolutes:

I usually try to avoid making absolute conclusions, especially in cases like this.

"Always" is an absolute. "Exactly" means "perfect, without flaw, precise. Also too much of an absolute.

Will I die one day? Probably. (Or maybe I will find a cure for death or discover the fountain of youth and perpetual life. Or maybe there is no such thing as death, and we just leave our bodies and walk into another world or dimension. Perhaps this is just a virtual reality and we are infinite beings playing a game.

Do we live on earth? Probably. Or maybe we live in a holographic reality and we only think we live on a planet called earth.

But this is really getting off the subject of the original question.

Sky wrote...

True, both have the same means, however, in a case where a reader has used that means in order to make false or wrongful(illogical) accusations about the writer's thoughts, only the writer would know for sure that the reader's claims were untrue or off the mark. That is what was being focused on, and really constitutes the substance of this thread.

I would not conclude that repeated written conversation necessarily equates to "knowing the reader". That conclusion assumes too much, and does not necessarily follow.



I completely disagree. Let me give you a real life example.

If I were married to a black woman, and I were white, and a reader somehow falsely concluded through not nearly enough evidence that I were racist and went on to share this false belief with others also convincing them of the same, then I could know beyond a doubt that that particular reader was over-confident in their opinions/conclusions.

Where or not a claim is valid entirely depends on it's logical grounds(argument).



Assuming that a writer knows what s/he means, recognizes and comprehends the response, then they have that to measure with. If a reader should give some explanation which does not correspond to what the writer wrote or meant, then an understanding is not had. An understanding does not necessarily equate to an agreement. It equates to a successful mental grasping of what the writer means through his/her written word(s).



I would not disagree, in order to be fair about it. Although, I am quite unsure what those standards would consist of.

Well, are you not the reader who is doing the interpretation there?

If you feel that the description I gave fits you personally, how can you blame me for that? That's your interpretation.

Actually when I wrote that I was thinking about several indvidiuals that this scenerio seems to fit on many different internet forums that I've been on. I feel that the tactic I described is actually a rather popular tactic on Internet forums in general and is not rare or unique to any one individual at all. It seems to be a rather common human behavior actually.

I would be interested in what drives people to do it. Why ask a question and then challenge the people who offer their views on it?

Asking them for clarification and motivation seems realistic. But then accusing them of giving 'strawman' and 'ad hominem' arguments when all they are doing is trying to explain why they feel they way they do seems to me to be a very strange way to 'do philosophy'.

But clearly, that's my opinion, and nothing more. It just seems strange to me. Isn't that a fair thing to for me to express? Or should I just crawl in a dark corner and not express my views?

Because you get a better response by asking a question than just by stating an opinion.

@ JB...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Fallacies are a part of the well established rules for doing philosophy. If an argument is fallacious in any respect, then it is to be held as invalid.

Asking questions is one thing. But when they answer those questions and are accused of giving 'strawman' and 'ad hominem' arguments is quite another.

Didn't I also suggest the following?

"Asking them for clarification and motivation seems realistic. But then accusing them of giving 'strawman' and 'ad hominem' arguments when all they are doing is trying to explain why they feel they way they do seems to me to be a very strange way to 'do philosophy'."

I'm all for asking for clarification. Clarification is at the heart of communication. But accusing people of giving 'stawman' and 'ad hominem' arguments is hardly conducive to clarification.

At least I don't see any value in that approach.

Perhaps I'm behind the times?

Maybe the world has changed since I've become a hermit.

That wouldn't surprise me much to be honest about it.

James,

You have used the exact same words when in an argument with me... to me. It is perfectly logical given our past, to draw the conclusion which I have. I would bet that I am not alone.


I want to address this...



There is a difference in fitting what you think about me, exactly restated, and what fits me. Do not be mistaken in that. Your desciption fits what you think about me.

Now without you here, there has been little to no personal remarks.

I can only hope that that continues.

What words are you talking about? I never use the words 'strawman' or 'ad hominem'. That's not my style.

If I feel a person's argument is lacking merit, I'll take the time to address the specific issuse where I feel the argument is weak. Rather than to just accuse the other person of creating 'strawman' arguments. That's just not my style of communication at all.



I have not made a personal remark about you at all. You have attempted to take my response to your question and turn it into a personal remark about you.

If you don't think it fits you, then why would you think it was about you?

You had asked "What must happen?" before a reader can safely conclude things about a writer.

I merely answered your question being as honest as I can be.

Are you interested in knowing how other people view these questions or not?

Typically I don't make any conclusions about writers that I have little or no previouse experience with. So a long term repeated behavior is what "Must Happen" before I draw any conclusions. And when that does happen, then I feel safe to draw those conclusions.

Is that not what this topic is all about?

If not, then I guess I'm guilty of totally misunderstanding the topic altogether.

You asked in the OP "Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks?"

Later you asked specifially, "What must happen before conclusions can be drawn?"

Those were the questions I was responding to directly.

Long term behavior must happen, then I feel safe to draw conclusions.

That's my view on the TOPIC of this thread.

Nothing personal implied.

I already stated why. The example is an exact repeat of a prior personal attack against me. C'mon James, if you seriously do not remember saying these things to me in recent past, then I do not know what to say. It seems blatant to me based upon your previous words to me...

Does the language thread ring a bell? You said those same things about me... to me.



THESE...



The above things represent exactly what you have said to me personally, about me personally.

Now if I am mistaken that you were not purposefully implying this again to and about me, my apologies. I would conclude that you do not remember. However, given our recent past, if you do remember using those same words against me, then I do question the resourcefulness of one who I know can use words well, should he choose.

A better example would have been one which did not correlate to our history so accurately.

Dontcha think?