is argument worthwhile?

[whisperingplant]

Hello everyone. I wish everyone well.

This is my first posting in a forum.

I am of the view that argument is a form of conversation that should be avoided all of the time. This means if I want to say something I am to say it in a manner that is not arguable. If I cannot achieve this I am not entitled to say it. It is important to understand that if I make a statement that is arguable then the person receiving the statement will in all likelihood respond by argument. For example, if we are trying workout is something is concious or not it is important that before stating the word concious its definition be clear and understood or I cannot use the term. I know I am concious, but it becomes pointless conversation to ponder if a dog is concious because the assumption is immediately arguable. The progression of an intelligible and knowledgeable conversation stops and argument starts. Might as well stop talking. So as a community seeking to converse with one another agreement must be sought, developed and understood. It is not a case of I can speak so I shall whether you agree or not. It is a case of I shall continue to increase my knowledge in a disciplined manner in which agreement with people I wish to converse will readily give that agreement. Every idea has its counter idea. Argument to me merely passes the time in a manner that is midly interesting but disciplined expression of non arguable knowledge is more challenging and progressive

[CaptainPanic]

We should first agree on the definition of "Argument". Because I use this definition (link to wikipedia):

 

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion.

But "argument" can have many meanings... and it can even be a synonym for a fight.

[whisperingplant]

Thank you for your reply captain panic.

the attempt to persuade somebody of something actually hinders the conversational learning approach that we all should take as a philosophical approach to converse with fellow human beings. It is an incredibly hard task to say anything at all that at some level is not arguable. So philosophy discussions suffer from conversations opening like what is consciousness instead of we know consciousness to be. People of different intellectual levels can show more when the latter instead of the former is used. I enjoy reading people who want say I know this because it is not arguable. But what hope is there if the only enjoyment to be gained a conversation is arguing over the meaning of argument.

[CaptainPanic]

Ok, so the wikipedia definition is accepted (you used it too).

 

I disagree with your last post. But I will not explain why, because that would be an argument... and I would persuade you to change your opinion. So, I merely disagree.

 

(Was that any good?)

 

Oh, whatever... I can't do it. Let's have an argument!

 

I think an argument is impossible to avoid. There is no such thing as a fact that you cannot disagree with, because it is to your conversational partner to choose whether he/she disagrees, not the person stating the fact. Even if you say that 1+1=2, I can choose to disagree with it. And there is no way that you can present your fact in such a way that disagreeing is completely impossible, although it certainly is foolish to disagree with certain facts.

 

In fact, in the Principia Mathematica, they need 379 pages to prove that 1+1=2 (and it was only published in 1910). I guess people have had an argument about that too then...

 

Even if there would be certain facts that cannot be disagreed with, wouldn't the conversation be empty? The more complicated relations and connections among things are far more interesting than dull facts. And the whole purpose of logic is to give a structure to the argument... when we even have a structure for our arguments, why shouldn't we use it?

 

It is the challenge to engage in a discussion and to persuade the other which makes it so much fun to discuss and argue.

 

It's a different thing when you talk about miscommunications or fallacies of course. A fallacy is an attempt to persuade someone using false arguments. And in fact, those are against the forum's rules. Btw, it is also difficult to avoid fallacies. A miscommunication is another problem, where people just don't understand each other (or sometimes refuse to understand each other). Again, this is sometimes difficult to avoid.

[Phi for All]

Imo, you can't learn without challenging yourself. That often means conflict and argument. There's nothing wrong with argument as long as it doesn't cloud your judgement.

 

And if we only used knowledge we knew to be true, no one would ever get to voice an opinion that might lead to knowledge.

[questionposter]

Hello everyone. I wish everyone well.

This is my first posting in a forum.

I am of the view that argument is a form of conversation that should be avoided all of the time. This means if I want to say something I am to say it in a manner that is not arguable. If I cannot achieve this I am not entitled to say it. It is important to understand that if I make a statement that is arguable then the person receiving the statement will in all likelihood respond by argument. For example, if we are trying workout is something is concious or not it is important that before stating the word concious its definition be clear and understood or I cannot use the term. I know I am concious, but it becomes pointless conversation to ponder if a dog is concious because the assumption is immediately arguable. The progression of an intelligible and knowledgeable conversation stops and argument starts. Might as well stop talking. So as a community seeking to converse with one another agreement must be sought, developed and understood. It is not a case of I can speak so I shall whether you agree or not. It is a case of I shall continue to increase my knowledge in a disciplined manner in which agreement with people I wish to converse will readily give that agreement. Every idea has its counter idea. Argument to me merely passes the time in a manner that is midly interesting but disciplined expression of non arguable knowledge is more challenging and progressive

 

Argument brings up points which can be discussed, its a way to iron out things.

[Ophiolite]

This means if I want to say something I am to say it in a manner that is not arguable.

Then why did you not do so here?

[whisperingplant]

Hi everyone. I don't know just how to reply to specific posts yet.

So here is a few answers to the people who were nice for replying.

Everyones knowledge compared to each other is at different levels so if 1 + 1 = 2 you might reply 1 + the answer 2 equals 3 a prime number.

A constraint that is very difficult to operate within.

 

If we take any endeavour and determine the reward is to communicate with another human being then we can clearly see the following.

Newton places his ideas in his principia mathmatica to communicate with anybody willing to listen and learn. Newtons conversation travels some three hundred years into the future to find Einstein.

Einstein can't argue with newton because newton is dead. Einstein learns all he can from newton. One thing Einstein learns is he can take the principia mathmatica change it, add to it and change its perspective. But Einstein cannot argue with newton. There is no point. Everybody moves on.

A philosophical doctrine where its devotees deliberately refuse to argue anything as a response to another persons communication whatever it be, seems to lead to a better relationship with other people.

So now somebody maybe able to see what I don't know contribute something, and I grow.

[Ophiolite]

A philosophical doctrine where its devotees deliberately refuse to argue anything as a response to another persons communication whatever it be, seems to lead to a better relationship with other people.

Humbug. Your deliberate refusal to respond to my post has not led to a better relationship with me. It has led to me thinking of you as rude, though that is of little consequence. More to the point, you have utterly failed to acknowledge that you were making arguable statements, something you declared one should avoid. To disregard something that essentially destroys your argument (on a discussion forum) is either intellectually dishonest, or intellectually limited.

[CaptainPanic]

Einstein can't argue with newton because newton is dead.

I disagree.

It is Newton who can't argue with Einstein because he is dead.

Einstein can actually argue with (or at least about) Newton. And he did. In fact, he came up with an improved theory... how is that not arguing??

Edited October 27, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[whisperingplant]

Humbug. Your deliberate refusal to respond to my post has not led to a better relationship with me. It has led to me thinking of you as rude, though that is of little consequence. More to the point, you have utterly failed to acknowledge that you were making arguable statements, something you declared one should avoid. To disregard something that essentially destroys your argument (on a discussion forum) is either intellectually dishonest, or intellectually limited.

 

 

A bit harsh.

 

I disagree.

It is Newton who can't argue with Einstein because he is dead.

Einstein can actually argue with (or at least about) Newton. And he did. In fact, he came up with an improved theory... how is that not arguing??

 

 

Yes, I accept your point.

[Ophiolite]

Harsh? I think not. Objective, yes. I am happy to discuss with you why it is a valid criticism. But you believe the matter is best served by not engaging in further discussion. That will improve the relationship between us will it? Really? If you truly believe that then you have demonstrated that my option of limited intellectual rigour on your part is proven. If you do not believe it then your argument (yes it is an argument) is completely demolished.

[whisperingplant]

Harsh? I think not. Objective, yes. I am happy to discuss with you why it is a valid criticism. But you believe the matter is best served by not engaging in further discussion. That will improve the relationship between us will it? Really? If you truly believe that then you have demonstrated that my option of limited intellectual rigour on your part is proven. If you do not believe it then your argument (yes it is an argument) is completely demolished.

 

My hope was to write and contribute something that would have been enjoyable and engaging. I understand my intellectual rigour has been found lacking.

[Ophiolite]

My hope was to write and contribute something that would have been enjoyable and engaging. I understand my intellectual rigour has been found lacking.

Quite the reverse. Now that you are choosing to engage in the debate and have demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge errors in your thesis we have the potential to get on famously. Of course if your last post was intended as sarcasm then we are left with tension between us, but remeber that that tension will have stemmed direcctly from your implmentation of your 'no response' concept.

[whisperingplant]

Quite the reverse. Now that you are choosing to engage in the debate and have demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge errors in your thesis we have the potential to get on famously. Of course if your last post was intended as sarcasm then we are left with tension between us, but remeber that that tension will have stemmed direcctly from your implmentation of your 'no response' concept.

Edited October 27, 2011 by johnnypluto

[imatfaal]

Johnny - another point, that I don't think has been raised is that it is practically impossible to write a sentence that can cannot be argued with. There is always an implied set of axiomata - those things that we hold to be true without further explanation; and different people will have different philosophical underpinnings to their moral persona. What you think of as unthinkable, I think of as a choice, and the guy over there thinks of as a necessity.

[PeterJ]

I wonder if it is possible to make an unarguable statement that is not tautological. I rather doubt it. Perhaps the OP could give an example to validate his approach.

[imatfaal]

I wonder if it is possible to make an unarguable statement that is not tautological. I rather doubt it. Perhaps the OP could give an example to validate his approach.

"All statements are arguable - except this one"

[Ophiolite]

Johnny - another point, that I don't think has been raised is that it is practically impossible to write a sentence that can cannot be argued with.

I believe I implicitly stated this in post #7. Of course, you could argue with that.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Ophiolite

[imatfaal]

I believe I implicitly stated this in post #7. Of course, you could argue with that.

 

If I was feeling argumentative I might feel the need to point out that your comment seemed to be limited to Johnny Pluto's failure to make any unarguable statements rather than the general principle that they cannot exist.

[Phi for All]

My hope was to write and contribute something that would have been enjoyable and engaging. I understand my intellectual rigour has been found lacking.

What makes you think argument isn't enjoyable and engaging?

 

And who said your intellectual rigor is lacking? I saw a complaint that you hadn't responded directly. Is your dislike of the argumentative process based on you taking things too personally?

 

And why did you decide to change your name midstream? From johnnypluto to whisperingplant?! Like that's not the basis for an argument? I've been petitioning the Admins to disable that function. Citations aren't changed when you quote someone, so it makes for very weird conversational backtrails.

 

I wonder if it is possible to make an unarguable statement that is not tautological. I rather doubt it. Perhaps the OP could give an example to validate his approach.

I kept waiting for just that. So far, everything written in this thread is arguable.

[Frontie]

Cogito ergo sum.

 

Arguable?

 

New Zealand won the RWC.

 

Arguable?

[Light Storm]

I am of the view that argument is a form of conversation that should be avoided all of the time. This means if I want to say something I am to say it in a manner that is not arguable. If I cannot achieve this I am not entitled to say it. It is important to understand that if I make a statement that is arguable then the person receiving the statement will in all likelihood respond by argument. For example, if we are trying workout is something is concious or not it is important that before stating the word concious its definition be clear and understood or I cannot use the term. I know I am concious, but it becomes pointless conversation to ponder if a dog is concious because the assumption is immediately arguable. The progression of an intelligible and knowledgeable conversation stops and argument starts. Might as well stop talking. So as a community seeking to converse with one another agreement must be sought, developed and understood. It is not a case of I can speak so I shall whether you agree or not. It is a case of I shall continue to increase my knowledge in a disciplined manner in which agreement with people I wish to converse will readily give that agreement. Every idea has its counter idea. Argument to me merely passes the time in a manner that is midly interesting but disciplined expression of non arguable knowledge is more challenging and progressive

 

Welcome to the forums

 

Sometimes people do learn a lot from arguments. I believe in a couple radical scientific theories that really go against the grain. Even mentioning them can cause posts getting locked, moved and deleted . But over years of having the same arguments, seperating accepted facts from raging opinions I've learned a lot about my own theories and have taken them to new levels each time. When you enter an argument, the best thing to do is keep an open mind about your subject.

 

 

 

 

[PeterJ]

Mind you, Whisperingplant's point is a good one even if it may be a bit off in a way. Perhaps the point is not so much about using statements that are inarguable, which is probably impossible without an agreed set of axioms to work from, but making sure that they are rigorous and so worth arguing about in the first place. I suspect that lack of rigour causes more arguments on these forums than arguable but rigorous statements. Achieving rigour takes a lot of practice but without it philosophical discussions become chaotic. I aim for rigour and have done a lot of practice but even so make silly mistakes from time to time. Still, if we at least aim for rigour then there may be a lot less unnecessary arguing. Just as much necessary arguing as ever though. The basis of philosophical logic is the dialectic, which is all about refutation by decisive argumentation, so maybe one could say that the whole point of philosophy is to argue, either with oneself or with someone else.

 

Cogito ergo sum.

 

Arguable?

 

New Zealand won the RWC.

 

Arguable?

Cogito is definitely arguable. It is just plain wrong according to many people.

 

The All-Blacks won the RWC. New Zealand is a place. And solipsism would say we dreamed the whole thing.

[Phi for All]

I suspect that lack of rigour causes more arguments on these forums than arguable but rigorous statements.

QFT.

 

 

 

I had a friend once who said if we both agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary.