Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Frame control: Defense against philosopher's frame

Hello guys,

Today I thought about a defense against the very powerful philosopher's frame. The power of this frame is to go higher in levels of abstraction. So what you're saying has a larger encompassing truth which cannot be denied. Here is an example (including a tautology): "Life is Life". When you say this, the only thing people can do is not in approval. That is why all conversations end either in disagreement, in agreement or in the unknowable ("Life is mysterious, who knows? etc.").

Here is the defence I propose:

"Philosophy is all good and all, what matters is what we are going to do now"

And any variation of it. Actually criticising the abstract nature of the frame as unpractical and unrealistic. 


Good, I like this.

Especially useful when people go philosopher as a power move.

As an example, the last time someone went philosopher on me was in my journal, when I was looking for concrete information about concrete travel risks like changes of regulations, getting blocked at the border if something was missing, etc., and she went:

Her: you know, anything you do in life is a risk, the moment you step outside of the house anything can happen in life

Total BS answer.
To use John's method:

You: Yeah, I agree, I also love philosophy, but I also like to get precise information before making decisions. So, let's say that...

Now the frame is that they are getting lost at the higher level of abstraction and that you seek real and practical answers. Your frame is now the "doer" frame, and it's higher power.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?