How do I deal with people who stonewall?

[harbinger truth]

Hey everyone,*Sorry about the messed up title.I wasn't sure where to post this but here the situation. My boyfriend  and I have been getting into arguments over the last couple of months. Whenever we get on topic we disagree on, I try to get him to define certain concepts that he is using in context of our dialogue, such if we were debating  free-will I would want him to define free-will. Then I try to give my definition for such terms. He''l then to go on to saying i'm argument semantics when I'm just trying to clarify what we're talking about. If the dialogue regressed from there he goes on to attack my intelligence or my personal ethic, in which he proceeds to go things like "where's your facts" or saying, "you're just wrong." and then stonewalls refusing to continue at all. I have met several people like this and find it very hard to deal with them. Do any of you have suggestions? 

[Pepin]

Sounds quite frustrating. From your account, it seems like they do not wish to make philosophical claims without discussing philosophy. This is like someone making a claim about physics, and when asked what evidence there is to back up such a claim, responding by saying that you are incorrect in your questioning just playing a word game.

 

What I think is essential is that if you hold empiricism to be of the highest rational value, then in debates with others, you must also apply such a value. In your arguments, I get the impression that the impression that there is a large sense of not wanting to expose themselves to rational discourse. If this is true: you cannot have a productive debate with these people. If they do not seem interested in understanding your argument and will simply assert that you are wrong, part of them is making it quite clear that this is not something they want to speak about in rational terms.

 

I'd recommend watching this series of podcasts called The Bomb in the Brain because it really helps in understanding what is occurring.

 

I understand that this advice likely isn't very helpful, because if simplified all I am saying is: you can't reason with those who don't wish to reason. But this is a major pitfall that almost everyone who is interested in philosophy, who is interested in truth falls into. I used to spend hours and hours on some forum picking apart all of the nonsensical arguments people were making, and when people were confronted with these errors, it did not at all concern them and they continued making even worse arguments. After about a year or more of this, I just had to accept that I can only have productive rational discussions with people who value truth over falsehood, with people who care more about reason and evidence than about conclusions.

[Stephen C]

I don't think these conversations have anything to do with free will, determinism, semantics, definitions, intelligence, ethics, etc. I suggest ditching the topics and instead talking about what both of your relationships were like with your parents growing up. How they resolved disagreements, how they treated you both when you had thoughts that weren't in alignment with theirs. Talk about how you're both feeling in the conversation and after it. Try to understand where he is coming from and ask him to try to do the same. See if there are any similarities between the conversation you two are having and conversations you've had with your parents. If you haven't read Real Time Relationships yet, I think it's worth a listen/ read.

[Flake]

Semantics is the study of meaning. Someone who says "you're just arguing semantics" in a derogatory way doesn't understand the importance of semantics. What he's saying is, "the meaning of what we are saying doesn't matter", literally. This should tell you that he doesn't understand enough philosophy for a debate to be worth having.

 

Stonewallers can't admit they are wrong, so anytime they think you are saying they are wrong, it won't go well. They usually also have the habit of blaming others when things aren't going right, such as them blaming relationship problems on their partner, they won't admit that they may have a part to play in the problem. They aren't likely to change their ways. You could save yourself a lot of stress in the long run by leaving him.

[RestoringGuy]

To start saying a definition you have to use more undefined words, so there is always some frustration.  I have found it useful to try adopting whatever definition the other person seems to imply, and then find extreme outlying cases which fully meet their idea yet lead to absurdity.  Then they are put on the spot to initiate the sematics discussion.I know some people will say definitions do not have to be "perfect", they only have to work most of the time.   We will allow exceptions.  But exactly which exceptions are really allowed?  Now everyone stonewalls, because everyone shuns perfection and it becomes necessary to invent new exceptions in response to our own uncomfortable conclusions.  By everyone, I mean almost everyone. 

[Tony Crowe]

harbinger truth, that is difficult when we want to have a discussion with someone we care about and they side-step or stone-wall it.

 

When it happens to me I try to ask myself "What is my motive for discussing this?" or "What is the goal of this conversation?" I can also ask the other person what their goal is if I'm unsure.

 

Usually when I press for a definition it exposes the depth of knowledge or interest people have in that subject. If they aren't interested or their goal is not to explore for the truth then I leave them to believe whatever they want.

 

Have you checked beforehand what the goal for the conversation is before putting a lot of effort into it?

[TimotheCook]

When someone stonewalls, what they are saying, in effect, "I don't want to talk about this anymore." Ask them if that's what they really want.

 

Isn't it curious that your boy friend doesn't want to consider your position. Now I'm not trying to jump to conclusions about him or anything, just pointing out something I think is a bit queer.

 

Ask whats going on for him when your explaining your positions, and tell him whats happening to you. Be honest and curious and show whats important to you and get to know whats important to him.

 

If you aren't curious you don't need to force it, just leave the situation or go do something else. The situation is voluntary after all, you don't have to be around that person if you don't want to be around them anymore.