Random Rants #1

So here's the short of it: on one of the forums I post on, someone broke the Law of the Internet by taking something from this forum and posting it verbatim on a different, related one. It was a personal thing and there was all sorts of drama, and we're all very upset, etc, etc. This is all completely irrelevant. I bring it up only as background for the discussion that followed, with lots of people lamenting the betrayal of their trust, expressing worries about continuing to post on the (ostensibly private) forum, and so on. I don't mean to trivialize these people's reactions of hurt and worry, though I myself don't share them.

Anyway, the discussion turned to "What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" I suggested that we stop feeling compelled to keep secrets, as this would prevent the breaching of trust from ever becoming a problem. Everyone laughed.

Part 1 of my rant

Why is it that even when we're looking for solutions to a problem, we're unwilling to look at the greater context that makes the problem a problem in the first place? Imagine someone saying, "I'm building a house, but I don't have enough nails. Where can I find more?" Would it be reasonable for this person to scoff at a reply like, "I don't have any nails, but why don't you just build the house without any? Here, I'll show you how"?

Or, more generally: if I'm playing by rules A, B, and C, and I'm worried about someone breaking rule C... as long as rule C isn't absolutely intrinsic to the game, wouldn't it make more sense to just abandon rule C yourself, rather than creating a rule D that says, in effect, "follow rule C"? (Incidentally, this is related to a number of problems regarding logic, and is very well-illustrated in Lewis Carroll's What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.)

And if we insist on continuing to play by the old rules, doesn't it behoove us to accept the risks and vulnerabilities that playing by those rules entails?

Part 2 of my rant

One of the responses to my suggestion was something like, "WTF at Peter turning this into a philosophical discussion." I'm not sure what exactly constitutes a philosophical discussion -- I'm inclined to think that a philosophical discussion is characterized by its style and tenor rather than by its content. 

Anyway, this is something I've been seeing a lot lately -- when we don't want to deal with an idea, we just say "Oh, that's so philosophical" and write it off, as if that made it somehow inapplicable to the world we live in.

And maybe it's true that sometimes, we philosophers contribute tidbits that are both true and irrelevant. But asking "What should we do?" and then rejecting a "This is what you should do" response on the grounds that it's just "philosophical"... well. Honestly, I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. Suffice it to say that you shouldn't do it.