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

The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#81

Post by anigbrowl »

sideaccount wrote: post #24
dav wrote: post #9

Did they have a word for the intellectually dishonest practice of just making stuff up to support one's argument?

I think gish galloping is the modern phrase, gish gallopers are toxic.

Gish galloping is burying an opponent in an avalanche of claims or factoids that would take far longer to refute. The practice of just making stuff up without regard to its truthfulness is called bullshit, and has achieved some traction as a technical term thanks to this excellent little essay on the topic: http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_...

It reads like a joke at first, but is well worth your sustained attention.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#82

Post by alchemism »

In the Roman Catholic Church there was once an official position known as the Advocatus Diaboli, or Devil’s Advocate. Their task was to be the skeptic, and argue persuasively against the canonization of a new Saint - essentially an applied version of the third form of dialectic mentioned here.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#83

Post by coheeman1 »

asveikau wrote: post #12

I frequently argue points I do not personally hold. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as me holding the opinion, or an attack on the person, or some such. But really I am testing the idea and recognizing that someone else could hold this opinion but not be in the room to advocate for it.

This is pretty much what the Sophists did professionally.

In the city state of Athens there were no such things as 'lawyers' to represent you. If you had a legal problem and it was brought up to court (typically consisting of dozens, sometimes hundreds of judges) you argued your case yourself. Those who were better orators had a better chance of winning, so the nobility and rich often went to schools where they practiced rhetoric.

This obviously meant having to argue over the dumbest and inane things possible, some of these discourses we've managed to preserve over the millennia.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#84

Post by nradov »

claudiawerner wrote: post #30
marstomorrow wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have come across this in some friends. It's super interesting but also dangerous. It has taken me sometimes years or a decade to fully come to terms with some past debates. My friends would seemingly hold opinions and cling to them dearly, opinions I felt were so unconscionable I could not imagine holding them. Friendships were strained and maybe some lost. They tell me now that they were doing as you do, and that…

My own experience with this tends to arise out of an extreme cognitive dissonance - I want my opinions to be internally consistent, and I've come to realize that a few of them just aren't consistent. When you get into reading the philosophy (or the relevant literature in other cases) you can come to conclusions which are quite far removed from beliefs one holds dear. So there's some tension between what I'd like to b…

Don't take philosophy or economics too seriously. The vast majority of it is bunk.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/a-foolish-consistency-is-t...

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#85

Post by pvelagal »

svat wrote: post #75

The tradition of debate in India that this article is about (or dialogue, or dialectic, or whatever you want to call it) is very interesting, and unfortunately not well-known because most of the sources on the topic quickly get into technicalities. Two non-technical (somewhat accessible to the general public) sources I've found are: 1. The book “Religions, Reasons, and Gods” by the late John Clayton has many interest…

Even today, in my language "Telugu" if some one is trolling we call it "vitanda vadam" - i.e. No point in continuing the discussion.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#86

Post by wolf7 »

asveikau wrote: post #12

I frequently argue points I do not personally hold. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as me holding the opinion, or an attack on the person, or some such. But really I am testing the idea and recognizing that someone else could hold this opinion but not be in the room to advocate for it.

I would recommend watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#87

Post by thinkingemote »

If I could be forgiven to be meta here, are there any comments in this thread which are elaborate trolls on the nature of trolling?

I'm not as sophisticated as some of you but it seems as if those with more experience in these matters wouldn't find it easy to be sucked into discussions with a troll. Could there be a master troll or two here which you have fallen for?

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#88

Post by asveikau »

wolf7 wrote: post #86
asveikau wrote: post #12

I frequently argue points I do not personally hold. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as me holding the opinion, or an attack on the person, or some such. But really I am testing the idea and recognizing that someone else could hold this opinion but not be in the room to advocate for it.

I would recommend watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4

I watched half of it before deciding I don't understand how this relates. If we're talking about arguments in which the objective truth is unambiguous (eg. who invaded Spain), there is no argument among reasonable people. And I explicitly said I am talking about adopting positions for the purpose of argument not to "attack the other side".

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#89

Post by ratmice »

svat wrote: post #75

The tradition of debate in India that this article is about (or dialogue, or dialectic, or whatever you want to call it) is very interesting, and unfortunately not well-known because most of the sources on the topic quickly get into technicalities. Two non-technical (somewhat accessible to the general public) sources I've found are: 1. The book “Religions, Reasons, and Gods” by the late John Clayton has many interest…

I guess a pet peeve of mine, the Di, in Dialectic refers specifically to two-valued logic, resolving to a truth or false.

Which at least in the case of Jain philosophy, with 3 basic truth values true, false, and unassertable, so really these traditions are not necessarily dialectic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_seven-valued_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#90

Post by reshie »

rciorba wrote: post #31
asveikau wrote: post #12

I frequently argue points I do not personally hold. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as me holding the opinion, or an attack on the person, or some such. But really I am testing the idea and recognizing that someone else could hold this opinion but not be in the room to advocate for it.

Here's my take on when people do this: Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in good faith they believe their own statements. Any later claim to the contrary leaves me with the following choice to make: were they lying then, or are they lying now.

it can also be called devils advocate. it can be helpful when you do not have someone to argue that side and good for understanding a issue from many sides and can be in good faith. stating a disclaimer does make things more transparent though and may or may not be good for the sake of the argument. bad faith in this case would be misrepresenting or downplaying the other argument wrongfully to further your own opinion.
Post reply on HN