Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aristotle, “On Trolling”

journals.cambridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#21

Post by igravious »

hguant wrote: post #19
labster wrote: post #14

for there is no art in what they do. I couldn't disagree more. There is common trolling and there is sublime trolling. The ability to sow the perfect amount of strife to create real change is a thing of beauty. This goes beyond the tactics of information warfare -- for which trolling has its uses -- and reveals truth to those in ignorance. For most true knowledge cannot be learned by the advice of elders alone, but m…

Your comment relies on a misunderstanding of what Aristotle - or his proxie here - means by the term "art". In modern usage, something that has no art to it is base, simple, and requires no effort to achieve. However, art meant something more nuanced to Aristotle (that nuance is why people still make a living arguing over the implications of what he said). For Aristotle, an art was something that pointed to the Good.…

Rest assured, the jet lag appears not to have blunted the art of your reasoning ;)

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#22

Post by igravious »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #18
Animats wrote: post #15

Sounds like Aristotle had a bad day with Socrates.

Yes. This post gives me words to express what I always thought: They killed Socrates for trolling.

I read something recently that Socrates was killed because he supported the wrong political faction during a time of conflict. When their enemies gained power they exacted revenge by framing him by accusing him of impiety and corrupting the youth (won't somebody think of the children?). Besides they gave him an out (exile), which he declined so he chose martyrdom and the rest is history as they say. But at this remove, who knows. Can't for the life of me remember where I read that or I'd post a link.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#23

Post by SFJulie »

Making Aristotle be not "pissed" at troll? O_o

Aristotle like Plato were so convince that being right mattered so much more than ethic that they did not care and resorted to any means to make their points; lying, fallacies, spinning the truth, using auhority (they loved auhthority).

And they would call sophists (troll) anyone who they would consider opposing them and ridicule them.

They were the bulliers of the wisdom.

They were the prominent philosophs lobbying for the Republic because Athenes was a democracy, and rich people was paying Plato to attack the concept of democracy so that the wealthiest could finally rule the city. (which resulted in the fall of Athenes)

Aristotle and Plato were more than trolls, they were assholes.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#24

Post by imakesnowflakes »

igravious wrote: post #17
javajosh wrote: post #3

I was unaware that people trolled for any other reason than amusement. Is there an estimate of how frequently people troll for calculated (e.g. monetary) reasons? So my take is that she says trolls act as a kind of solvent to the natural bonds of community, and she lists a few frequently used constructions. I suppose the only beneficial use of trolls and trolling is to destroy communities of little worth. If trolls s…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1555005/Seven-chil... Can we really call trolls evil if within a community they counteract group-think, wage a war on cliché, and subvert unthinking and tired stereotyping? Perhaps Aristotelian virtue theory can help us answer these questions?

This section from an essay I read recently [1] might be relavent here

>In the 1960s, feminists faced social ridicule, media approbation and violent hostility. Now, mirroring the incremental changes seen in technology, social progress all too often finds itself down the blind alleyways of political correctness. Student bodies used to be hotbeds of dissent, even revolution; today’s hyper-conformist youth is more interested in the policing of language and stifling debate when it counters the prevailing wisdom. Forty years ago a burgeoning media allowed dissent to flower. Today’s very different social media seems, despite democratic appearances, to be enforcing a climate of timidity and encouraging groupthink.

So we are conditioned by the social media to encourage groupthink, and so, we are conditioned to hate "trolls", when their behaviors threatens breaking groupthink.

I see this manifested here in HN in discussions involving Tesla/SpaceX. In those threads, if you are in a position where you are going against the rabid enthusiasm, moderators will step in with a ban threat, if you are even slightly combative or go out of the line. But the other side is given a lot more slack, when it comes to silencing dissenting opinion..

[1] https://aeon.co/essays/has-progress-in-science-and-technolog...

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#25

Post by CM30 »

igravious wrote: post #22
adrianratnapala wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This post gives me words to express what I always thought: They killed Socrates for trolling.

I read something recently that Socrates was killed because he supported the wrong political faction during a time of conflict. When their enemies gained power they exacted revenge by framing him by accusing him of impiety and corrupting the youth (won't somebody think of the children?). Besides they gave him an out (exile), which he declined so he chose martyrdom and the rest is history as they say. But at this remov…

I heard it was because some of his students rebelled against the government, took over and ended up acting as tyrants for a certain amount of time. So he kind of got the blame for their actions, as the one who 'inspired' them.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#27

Post by sspiff »

hguant wrote: post #19
labster wrote: post #14

for there is no art in what they do. I couldn't disagree more. There is common trolling and there is sublime trolling. The ability to sow the perfect amount of strife to create real change is a thing of beauty. This goes beyond the tactics of information warfare -- for which trolling has its uses -- and reveals truth to those in ignorance. For most true knowledge cannot be learned by the advice of elders alone, but m…

Your comment relies on a misunderstanding of what Aristotle - or his proxie here - means by the term "art". In modern usage, something that has no art to it is base, simple, and requires no effort to achieve. However, art meant something more nuanced to Aristotle (that nuance is why people still make a living arguing over the implications of what he said). For Aristotle, an art was something that pointed to the Good.…

Regardless of what definition of "art" you follow, I feel like trolling as described by labster can certainly be used for good.

Labster himself describes the use of trolling in tricking the reluctant apprentice into learning, or using it to sow strife to further policy making and bring about social change. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, but I could certainly consider some of those things to be good some of the time.

There is a difference in abusing other people online for entertainment - "common trolling" as labster describes it - and the "sublime trolling" in which he sees art.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#28

Post by blub »

sspiff wrote: post #27
hguant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment relies on a misunderstanding of what Aristotle - or his proxie here - means by the term "art". In modern usage, something that has no art to it is base, simple, and requires no effort to achieve. However, art meant something more nuanced to Aristotle (that nuance is why people still make a living arguing over the implications of what he said). For Aristotle, an art was something that pointed to the Good.…

Regardless of what definition of "art" you follow, I feel like trolling as described by labster can certainly be used for good. Labster himself describes the use of trolling in tricking the reluctant apprentice into learning, or using it to sow strife to further policy making and bring about social change. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, but I could certainly consider some of those things to be good some of the…

The only problem is that "sublime trolling" is something he made up. Tricking apprentices to learn, come on.

He's just playing devil's advocate in a not very convincing way.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#29

Post by visakanv »

jallmann wrote: post #13

Book one of Plato's Republic led to my lightbulb moment: witness Socrates's lilt of annoyance at Thrasymachus's behavior, which is not too far from what is being described here. People have not changed fundamentally in the last 2,500 years. Reading that amused me to no end. Plato is how I was able to make peace with the legions of Internet message-board nerds. (And observe in myself the traits of a troll, at times.)…

Yep. It's funny to me that people turn to Medium for life advice, because Shakespeare, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca etc all wrote it down in incredible detail hundreds of years ago.

I'm half-tempted to do modern translations of those old works and essays.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#30

Post by akavel »

labster wrote: post #14

for there is no art in what they do. I couldn't disagree more. There is common trolling and there is sublime trolling. The ability to sow the perfect amount of strife to create real change is a thing of beauty. This goes beyond the tactics of information warfare -- for which trolling has its uses -- and reveals truth to those in ignorance. For most true knowledge cannot be learned by the advice of elders alone, but m…

As to the quote, you've either misread, or are actually amusingly trolling yourself ;) Given that the whole sentence that the quote comes from actually explains how to detect non-trolls:

"And none of these is the troll, or perhaps some are of a mixed type; for there is no art in what they do."

and as a follow-up, close to the end the essay says:

"And since the one [a troll] who does this on every occasion must act with knowledge, and on the basis of practice and care, he has a kind of art"

With that out of the way, the gist of your comment is totally very interesting and thought provoking, thanks!

edit: or did I just perfectly fall for the troll here? :) still not really sure...

Post reply on HN