What do you do when your in a philosophical debate with your boss and they start projecting their childhood traumas as if they were universal absolute

[AKeinick]

If I didn't fear for my job I might just tell him honestly and openly that this is what's going on. He has me on Facebook so he knows that I'm into this stuff and he loves to 'debate' about it but its not a real debate, he changes his story anytime I expose a contradiction in his statements. He's interested in the conclusion with little respect for any kind of methodology. I don't want to dignify the sophistry by engaging it but I don't want to lose my job... Anyway back to work for now

[Slavik]

If he loves philosophical debates, try doing a role reversal with him, see if he can defend your position, and him yours.  This exercise might shed some light on what the perspectives are, as well as where the holes in thinking are.  Also, this approach tends to put people on the opposite sites, allowing for the less emotional discussion.

[SamuelS]

I'd try not making any statements, just ask questions and have him expose his own hypocrisy. Or block him, that's more likely what I'd do. No reason your boss needs to be in your private affairs.

[AKeinick]

Wow that was unexpected. I continued working after that last post and the conversation continued. I basically tried to quietly kill the topic but it persisted due to both of us and I basically said that we can't even agree on how to determine truth or what the definition of government is so we can scarcely hope to further explore the intricacies of government policies, programs and problems. He said there is no absolute truth ('its all opinion' type thing) and we explored the self defeating nature of that statement, being as it proposes absolutely that nothing is absolute. I mentioned the world is round absolutely. Gravity exists absolutely. Etc. This conversation was far more palatable to me than the previous predictable back and forth about governments and opinions so I continued with it. I had mentioned a few times throughout our our shift that principles need to be consistent which was spurred by an analysis of and assertion that had been made that people have the ability to, through democracy, give others the right to initiate force against others which results in a situation where two diametrically opposed individuals could both be granted the right to aggress against eachother if two separate groups elect as such (Israel/Palestine anyone?). The chat had died down a little, much more amicably so than usual during the only semi-amicable and seemingly predictable back and forth that happens when an AnCap talks politics with a decidedly statist police/politician lover (always wanted to be a cop, dreams of being a politician). I mentioned how the laws of logic dictate that a proposition which contradicts itself is false by definition. He's a learned fellow with a sharp memory so I assumed he knew what empiricism was but he didn't. I explained it as best I could, basically that its verifiable objective truth which exists and persists independent from human perception. I was surprised he hasn't heard of it and he almost seemed embarrassed himself for not having known. Heres the exciting part:

Almost out of no where he started admitting that he was undereducated in the area of philosophy and was basically having trouble keeping up with the conversation as a result (so to speak, my words not his) and that it was hard for him to say as much because, as I said he is usually very self assured and confident in his ability to engage the 'higher' planes of knowledge like politics, books, science, religion and other things (again, all my words not his, my memory is foggy). I assured him that I respect the everliving hell outta him for being so honest about that. He basically asked me how I learned about this stuff and I told him the main place I do my research is FreedomainRadio and casually mentioned that its the largest philosophy conversation in the world and that there's actually a specific series of free podcasts on the site which are actually called "Introduction to Philosophy". He made sure to get me to send him a link so I did to both the main site and the Intro to Philo series. How's that for a seeming grind of "Two TVs pointing at each other" turning into something positive! Omygosh what if he sees this thread! It would be worth it Enjoy the new listener Stef. Zeus knows you deserve it.

[SamuelS]

hah, that's awesome! not many have the integrity to admit when they don't know things...that's a very respectable quality, IMO

[Livemike]

If I didn't fear for my job I might just tell him honestly and openly that this is what's going on. He has me on Facebook so he knows that I'm into this stuff and he loves to 'debate' about it but its not a real debate, he changes his story anytime I expose a contradiction in his statements. He's interested in the conclusion with little respect for any kind of methodology. I don't want to dignify the sophistry by engaging it but I don't want to lose my job... Anyway back to work for now

 

Tell him you're really busy and don't have time to debate philosophy with him at work.  I really don't see this working out well for anybody.  It's clear that he doesn't want to debate philosophy.  He just wants to reinforce his own self-impression that he wants to debate philosophy.  Reinforcing a false impression, especially a false self-impression is bad for him.  Challenging it is bad for you.  Avoid more "debates". 

[Bedouin]

Nice one! Did he report back to you what he thought about FDR?

[Spenc]

why do you fear for your job?  what has been said or done to imply that is a realistic and substantive probabilty?

 

also, maybe this doesn't work with everyone, given differences in learning techniques and brain mapping....but Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek makes an incredible argument against central planning.  Reading the book is a lot of work because it is very dense material to get through.  But it can be summed up very simply.  Can planners have perfect information?  Can people be aware that their own desires may conflict with those of the plannerts?  Can people adapt their behaviours therefore to meet their own goals irrespective of the goals of the planners?  In order to fulfill their goals, must planners be increasingly secretive and strict in their control of information and the behaviours of the people?  Does this produce a cycle whereby the people are incapable of possessing the information to elect the proper planners, and the planners are incapable of being transparent to the public that elects them and must have the ability to guard against corruption and incompetence?  And so on, and so forth....Planning is tyranny.

[Blackfish64]

You did the right thing.  Stay out of philosophical conversations with your boss.  What you think and what you project can and will be used against you.  And if you and your boss agree, likely you will become pals who will use what other people say and project against them.

 

I think that talking philosophy, with the exception of among friends and certain circles  in the workplace who can handle the intellectual differences,  is out of the question. 

 

I've been a manager for a long, long time.  The last thing I want to hear is an employee, or a boss, start with me about some philosophy or childhood trauma.  I don't care.  I sympathize, empathize 100%, yes, but this is not the time nor the place for it.  If there are services and/or benefits forthcoming from the workplace we can offer you, I will refer them to that.  If not, I recommend they find help elsewhere and keep it out of the workplace.  

 

I know what it is to be a lover of philosophy.  I know what it is to be traumatized.  But I also know what it is to be a boss.  It's not easy.  People who are traumatized and argumentative and who can't handle the fact that others are different cause a lot of problems in the workplace.  They can even endanger others, innocents.  There is a time and a place for philosophy and therapy, and the workplace isn't one of them. 

[Bipedal Primate]

My experience with work relationships has taught me to observe but not to engage. I validate their feelings, without agreeing or disagreeing. I simply listen, and then get back to my work.

 

I have decided it is in my best interest to keep my private life separate from my work life. If a work mate invites me out to dinner or coffee and asks me about my personal life I will openly share my world view, because they are putting time and effort to get to know me outside of work.

 

But if we are at work, I try to avoid setting myself up for potential conflict that could cost me my job, or cause an uncomfortable working environment.

 

I made the huge mistake of letting my boss at my last job know --I am an Atheist and have a problem facilitating group therapy sessions that promote the belief that a 'higher power' is the reason people stay in recovery. It ended up biting me in the ass and once I outed myself as an Atheist, I suddenly was disliked by a lot of my co-workers.