A troll intends to generate disputes in a community under the guise of seeking truth. They're not seeking truth, but instead seeking to damage the community by generating strife. They employ techniques that are also used in Socratic approaches, e.g. playing devil's advocate, questioning known truths to check consistency, etc. In that way, the methods of a troll and Socratic inquiry overlap. But Socratic inquiry aims at truth.

Put another way, the distinction between trolling and Socratic critical thinking is analogous to the distinction between bullshit and lying. Liars attempt to convince others that something that is false, is true. They do this by saying false things. Bullshitters also say false things, but they don't care if they're believed.

Caveat lector:

Often, I ask philosophical (ethical or moral) questions, and always face the risk that people will accuse me of "trolling". Have you experienced such situations?

For example, to even merely suggest that perhaps inequality may be just could be "trolling" because the statement could be offensive and objectionable.

How do you respond? How should a teacher respond?

follwing

The ultimate guide to trolling: Trolling is not trolling.

Martin Klvana Hmm. Well i have been kicked out of innumerable groups for just asking "stupid", "silly" and "obvious" questions. i hope i am safe in RG. Trying to be on my best behavior.

Joseph Tham, no good trolling deed goes unpunished . . .

A troll intends to generate disputes in a community under the guise of seeking truth. They're not seeking truth, but instead seeking to damage the community by generating strife. They employ techniques that are also used in Socratic approaches, e.g. playing devil's advocate, questioning known truths to check consistency, etc. In that way, the methods of a troll and Socratic inquiry overlap. But Socratic inquiry aims at truth.

Put another way, the distinction between trolling and Socratic critical thinking is analogous to the distinction between bullshit and lying. Liars attempt to convince others that something that is false, is true. They do this by saying false things. Bullshitters also say false things, but they don't care if they're believed.

Martin Böhnert Thank you Sir. Great reply. i have been struggling with this issue for a while. Since i am from a different time period, these accusations of trolling have been very puzzling for me. Much to think about and reflect you. Again, thank you.

John Beverley Seeking truth is not unlike charging at windmills. Sancho here, yours truly. First, we have to determine whether Truth exists although small "truths" abound. Since Godel, the issues of undecidability and incompleteness have plagued the quests for truth, which is indeterminate within an axiomatic system. i am not sure what would be there in a non-axiomatic system so i am cautiously optimistic.

Second, is Truth unique. We simply do not and cannot know. Yes, intentions are important. Galileo uttered "Eppure si mouve", it is claimed. What were his intentions? To corrupt the youth. Bring me the hemlock please.

John Beverley Given indeterminancy, undecidability and incompleteness, who is a liar? Who am I to judge? intentions, intentions. So difficult to read people's intentions. Bullshitters are much easier to figure out. if forced to choose, i would rather be called a troll than a liar.

So now we have it. A troll could be a wannabe Socratic scholar. A priori, we cannot tell if someone is a troll or not. A terrible troll would just continuously provoke.

Not unlike the Schrodinger's cat. We can only tell when we observe it. Suppose i begin a series of questions, and the listener is provoked. Then at that point i am a troll. and we proceed, and there is no "aha" moment. perhaps a few minutes later, the listener reflects and experiences an "aha" moment. Then i become a Socratic scholar. So perhaps there is some sort of duality that is indeterminant at the outset. just some crazy ideas on this fascinating distinction.

Any comments on reflecting on koans, or Buddhist sayings? They are also clearly intended to provoke. but quite different in spirit and substance from deep Socratic questioning.

i guess one way to solve this problem would to declare one's intentions at the outset. However, the very fact that i have to declare my intentions could raise suspicions. Why is the person saying that? it does present a conundrum. Why should i believe that person? one would have to exude one's "true colors" and people would have to correctly interpret the "true colors".

Joseph Tham I take my answer to be a further consequence of Martin's thoughts, so I'm confused by your response. Surely the purpose of critical thinking isn't just to pose novel alternative perspectives alongside counterparts. Surely it's in the interest of evaluating some as more suitable than others, depending on one's interests. I'm fine calling that sort of inquiry truth seeking. That's still sufficient to distinguish trolls from critical thinkers. So, I don't think we have to determine whether "Truth" exists to answer your initial question as I have. Similarly for whether "Truth" is unique.

As an addendum, I'd not say truth is indeterminate within an axiomatic system. That overlooks a lot of important nuance. Godel showed very specific languages with very specific properties either can't consistently make very specific value assignments or can't express everything you'd expect them to be able to express. Note the qualifications: (1) Truth isn't a problem in just any axiomatic system; it's a problem in a range of very specific axiomatic systems; (2) In this description of Godel's result I've not mentioned truth at all. All that's needed in his result is a designated value assignment. We often speak of that assignment as a truth assignment, but linking it to "Truth" - whatever that ends up being - requires metaphysical premises often unstated and undefended.

John Beverley Your response is super. Absolutely no quarrels with it. i guess i was just reacting to the search for truth. That is all.

Critical thinking is more than just a skill for learning; it's a skill for life. Everyone, not just our students, can benefit from enhanced thinking skills both in and out of the classroom. The Critical Thinking Companion is the perfect field guide for learning how to think critically, and having plenty of fun doing it.

Bursting with challenges and activities in color, it's designed to make the process of developing and improving critical thinking skills enjoyable for just about anyone. There's something for every student and educator in this powerhouse guide—it's truly a critical resource for classrooms.

There is no either/or response to your question: Socrates was put to death for 'trolling', and the issue of intent and/or effect are not as easily isolated or disentangled as many in this thread seem to imply.

It is even possible to argue that the very conception of philosophy (as conceived by Socrates and instantiated in many philosophy departments around the world) is the very essence of trolling - if only because it is predicated upon the assumption that (the search for) 'truth' is possible and/or accessible via argumentation. And yet they still argue with each other (often about the same things Socrates was arguing about but in different or displaced ways).

If the history of thought has taught us anything, it is that the status of arguments and/or truth values are conditional upon things other than their intent and effects (such as motivated reasoning, confirmation bias and social-historic forces determining consensus about the merits of a given argument).

If the goal of philosophy is truth, why do the goal posts keep moving when we arrive at a given or agreed upon 'truth'?

If arguments can (finally) reach or achieve their goal, why do so many philosophers continue to argue with each other regardless?

I see the concept of critical thinking has been invoked in philosophy's defense. As many 'critical theorists' argue (broadly conceived, ranging from Nietzsche to Gadamer to Derrida and beyond) 'traditional' philosophers aren't truly 'critical' at all: they take the possibility of truth (and the integrity of philosophical intent ) as given - and these are the very issues that remain in dispute.

I encourage you to read the first chapter of Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment (on the concept of enlightenment) to give you an indication of the issues at stake. Horkheimer argued (elsewhere) that the concept of critical thought - what and whose purposes it truly served - was the very thing at issue at Socrates' trial.

https://monoskop.org/images/2/27/Horkheimer_Max_Adorno_Theodor_W_Dialectic_of_Enlightenment_Philosophical_Fragments.pdf

Steven Aoun Most grateful for your post. For me, a lot of unfamiliar stuff there. Will need to read more, and try to respond. i hope that other more knowledgeable on RG will respond to your post. Thank you Sir.

Thanks Joseph Tham

If the Adorno and Horkheimer chapter proves to be intractable, please also consider reading a less critical overview of the seeming lack of progress in (traditional conceptions of) philosophy by David Chalmers.

http://consc.net/papers/progress.pdf

I should stress that the concept of philosophy - and philosophical truth - is inherently value laden and characterized by ideological disputes (see the so called divide between 'analytic' and 'continental' philosophy as an example, although there are - of course - many divides within the so called philosophical divides themselves).

Michael Dummett wrote a very interesting book on this divide called the Origins of Analytical Philosophy

https://www.scribd.com/doc/204295777/Dummett-Origins-of-Analytical-Philosophy-pdf

Dummett noted that analytical philosophy originated on 'the continent' anyway...which can (of course) be traced back to the philosophical discourse of antiquity in the first place (the Socratic method of 'the dialectic of question and answer' was a response to precursors that included Heraclitus and the Sophists...and Socrates' questioning was subjected to questioning in turn from Aristotle onwards).

John Beverley You wrote: "Put another way, the distinction between trolling and Socratic critical thinking is analogous to the distinction between bullshit and lying."

You might be interested in my review of Frankfurt. Here is the abstract:

According to Frankfurt’s analysis, bullshitting and lying necessarily differ in intention. I argue contra Frankfurt that (i) bullshitting can be lying, and that (ii) bullshitting need involve neither misrepresentation nor intention to deceive. My discussion suggests that bullshit is not capturable by a simple formula and that, although illuminating, Frankfurt’s analysis is limited to one paradigm.

Article Review of On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt

Of course, trolling is a dominant behavior that is rejected by all religions, and it is different from critical thinking. Critical thinking makes a person deeply analyze the problem facing him, then gives suggested solutions to it, and exercises higher thinking skills through him, while trolling is a question directed to a person who harms his feelings.

A clarification question. Would it be fair to say that a "real" philosopher, say, Socrates, is in pursuit of "truth", whereas a sophist is merely seeking to win an argument, and does not pursue truth? The problem is: how does Socrates know that he is pursuing truth? Does he assume, a priori, that truth exists? and is unique? if truth is not unique, then there multiple paths to truth. i hope that knowledgeable scholars on RG will help me in understanding this issue.

If I understand correctly, trolling is creating an argument for the sake of arguing, with little or no regard for the truth. Socratic Method is a process to teach someone how to think critically. Critical thinking is the process of listening to someone who is trolling and determining that all they are doing is trying to create conflict without regard for the truth. In my classes, I use print and broadcast media as the basis for my discussions to develop critical thinking skills, by using Socratic Method especially when students accept a news report at face value, but also when they think they have reached a conclusion. What questions does one ask, to know when they have been given all sides of a story? How do they know if the reporter is biased? What is the bias of that reporter? Critical thinking is a skill that teaches a person to not accept everything they hear at face value. And, it is a skill that applies to all of life, not just school.

Let us consider trolls as sophists: arguing for the intention of non-epistemic gain. Let us consider critical thinkers as Socratic: arguing for the intention of epistemic gain. Now, whether this epistemic intention is ever realized, and whether it can be realized in universal or only idiosyncratic/solipsistic ways is another matter entirely. Also, someone could be trolling in their taking of offence by feigning it for the sake of garnering the personal satisfaction of seeing you apologize. Thus, whether you ought to apologize depends on towards what you take apologies as directed: the intent of offence, or its mere presentation.

Joseph Tham

Dear Joseph Tham thanks for this question. At the level of using critical thinking as a method of thinking , I believe that it is not modern but it dates back to Socrates who before Aristotle practiced a method or approach of thinking called the Elenchus approach which he said he took from his mother the midwife where his mother assisted women in delivering (generating ) children while he was generating ideas from men's brains.

Socrates`s approach was called dialectics , and dialectics depends on asking organized questions that aim at generating ideas .

Through Socrates's intelligent questions the learner can be led to a new level of knowledge and evaluating opinions, trends and attitudes and this is what critical thinking is at present.

Socrates employed his method in learning as an approach in learning philosophy and in this regard he created ethics , which is considered one of the most important branches of philosophy.

Socrates` method was based on concentrating on self-control through learning , and the same could be said about critical thinking which now depends on the importance of the self and its analysis and on combing values in specific cycles of knowledge.

Socrates did not take either attendance or absence of his students and was not interested in that , but he used to walk in Athena streets and teach his students whose number increased day after day and they belonged to the different classes of the Athenian society.

The role played by critical thinking teacher is not traditional at all. He will not play the role of the sage on the stage , but he is supposed to play the role of the guide on the stage.

The unexamined life is not worth living , as Socrates put it on the tongue of Plato, is not capable of surviving , and there is no doubt that critical thing is following this way.

Abduljaleel Kadhim Alwali Do you agree that Socrates was perhaps one of the foremost Western troll? And was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth?

Definition of philosophy. it seems to me that philosophy is an investigation of knowledge, being and existence. but it is not obvious to me that philosophy entails the search for truth. again, comments are welcome.

Joseph Tham

Dear Joseph Tham , let us say Socrates was one of the foremost Western troll but he was, nevertheless, found guilty of corrupting the minds of the Athens’ youth .

Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy and some scholars interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting. According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the “gadfly” of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the Oracle at Delphi , if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that none was wiser. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end of his trial. Here are Socrates’ accusations:

Socrates refused all these accusations and at the end of trial, when Socrates was asked to suggest his own punishment. He suggests a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead of punish him, because of the time he spends as Athens' benefactor. But sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison .

Abduljaleel Kadhim Alwali Thank you Sir for the post. Fascinating history. There is always the danger that we corrupt our listeners when we use the "Socratic method" of questioning. A lot of supporters of critical thinking, which is so popular these days, should go back and read about the life of Socrates.

A troll who makes another person angry is as beneficial as a critical thinker who makes another person think.

I suspect the problem may be slightly more manageable if we distinguish between the deontological and the teleological views of the matter. As for a priori and dialectic truths they appear to me to be human constructs rather than metaphysical Universals and so belong to that fuzzy truth of consensual agreement. Much, I believe, has changed in our understanding since Plato espoused the virtues of the interrogatory.

Nice Dear Joseph Tham

Socrates was guilty of the charges against him within a particularly fraught political situation. The actions of many of his students confirm Socrates' intentions. In fact Socrates was perhaps less searching for pure truths (or whatever) then attempting to undermine others' ideas and convince them of the superiority of his own. There were political agendas behind his methods. Athens was a political society where much had political meaning. We have sanitised Socrates and Plato.

Φιλοσοφία is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Dear Joseph Tham ,

The truth is already present since God created the earth and those on it, and knowing the truth or discovering it is through thoughtful and research processes carried out by individuals who strive in different fields with different paths.