is argument worthwhile?

[imatfaal]

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.

 

Agree with almost everything on rigor; but to nitpick, there are disagreements of definitions, interpretation and understanding that not truly axiomatic but still give rise to a difference of opinion and argument. As an example you state "the basis philosophical logic is the dialectic" - in terms of definitions I could not agree less; philosophical logic is either a singular process of formalization to remove the imprecision of human language (russells orginal use), or an additional philosophcial adjunct to symbolic and classical logic, or more recently it could be thought of as the attempt to bring clarity of understanding of each of the disciplines required to sensibly analyse rational behavior and thought processes; and in none of these forms is any more amenable to the dialectic process than other parts of philosophy and much less than many.

[Frontie]

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 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.

If you're capable of thought, surely you exist in some form? Is that really arguable? If there was anything in solipsism, surely that would support Cogito.

 

I'd say the All Blacks win was closer to a nightmare, than a dream.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Frontie

[CaptainPanic]

If you're capable of thought, surely you exist in some form? Is that really arguable?

Sure.

Prove to me that you actually think, then we'll talk again. And why would you need form to exist?

 

I'm not saying that I am making a good case here (you would probably win this discussion). I am only showing that you can argue with such a statement too.

 

You can argue against everything, except this sentence.

[Frontie]

Sure.

Prove to me that you actually think, then we'll talk again. And why would you need form to exist?

 

I'm not saying that I am making a good case here (you would probably win this discussion). I am only showing that you can argue with such a statement too.

 

You can argue against everything, except this sentence.

You could just say, "...wrong" to every point anybody makes, however water-tight.

 

Actually, that sounds like fun.

[PeterJ]

 

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

Hahaha. Very good. I like that.

 

Agree with almost everything on rigor; but to nitpick, there are disagreements of definitions, interpretation and understanding that not truly axiomatic but still give rise to a difference of opinion and argument. As an example you state "the basis philosophical logic is the dialectic" - in terms of definitions I could not agree less; philosophical logic is either a singular process of formalization to remove the imprecision of human language (russells orginal use), or an additional philosophcial adjunct to symbolic and classical logic, or more recently it could be thought of as the attempt to bring clarity of understanding of each of the disciplines required to sensibly analyse rational behavior and thought processes; and in none of these forms is any more amenable to the dialectic process than other parts of philosophy and much less than many.

Yes, quite so, there are other sorts of disagreements I shouldn't have ignored. Still, I think the dialectic is the core of the process, i.e. using the laws of thought to eliminate absurd theories. And I'd say (just to argumentative, that sensible analysis of thought processes etc requires Aristotle's logic and dialectic method. But no matter...

 

If you're capable of thought, surely you exist in some form? Is that really arguable? If there was anything in solipsism, surely that would support Cogito.

But that's not what your quote from Descartes said. He assumes there is an 'I' that thinks, but those who investigate their minds report that there is no 'I' that thinks. Big topic though, and probably best left for another discussion.

 

 

I'd say the All Blacks win was closer to a nightmare, than a dream.

Oh yes, good point.

[whisperingplant]

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.

 

 

good to see somebody comment well. I understand I will always say something arguable. The point is you have a choice of how to reply. We have throughout the years been taught excessively in my opinion to argue well.

Your alternatives may be ignoring all the arguable stuff and determine for yourself what you personally believe I might be interested in learning as you have above.

You may decide that what I have said may remind you of a witty story that you might want to share that has philosophical ideas and my reading them will increase my understanding.

You may read something recently that I have not and refer me to that for my interest.

I personally believe people can increase the priority of the alternative responses and decrease direct argument. I have looked up your word axiomata for instance and interestingly found it is the plural of axiom. Some dictionaries do show the plural to be also axioms. very cool

 

Cogito ergo sum.

 

Arguable?

 

New Zealand won the RWC.

 

Arguable?

 

 

instead of me responding in a I can argue for or against it. I would choose to talk about who said it, what it meant and what does the idea lead to. Its a great quote.

 

Hahaha. Very good. I like that.

 

 

Yes, quite so, there are other sorts of disagreements I shouldn't have ignored. Still, I think the dialectic is the core of the process, i.e. using the laws of thought to eliminate absurd theories. And I'd say (just to argumentative, that sensible analysis of thought processes etc requires Aristotle's logic and dialectic method. But no matter...

 

 

But that's not what your quote from Descartes said. He assumes there is an 'I' that thinks, but those who investigate their minds report that there is no 'I' that thinks. Big topic though, and probably best left for another discussion.

 

 

 

Oh yes, good point.

 

It is challenging to talk without arguing when all ones life has been spent communicating via argument with so many people who are transitory and fleeting who use arguing techniques. A tactical technique can simply be arguing by the use of frustration. By which I mean pin the discussion to an odd idea or misused word.

 

I would like to say that 'I' uses the mind as a craftsman uses a tool. 'I' will use my mind to achieve my goals.

Edited October 28, 2011 by whisperingplant

[Ophiolite]

good to see somebody comment well. I understand I will always say something arguable.

Your intial posts appeared to state the opposite of this. It is incidental whether or not this was your thinking, that was the appearance of your thinking. Now you have either changed your thoughts on this point, or have been able to clarify your thoughts on this point. The discussion has moved forward; all participants are better informed.

 

How was this progress achieved? Through the process of argument. You offer an alternative approach that has multiple deficiencies. It is indirect. It is slow. It tends to confuse as it offers no mechanism for rapid clarification. It depends on the speaker guessing what the listener would be interested in, rather than exploring it directly. You will need to present a better argument if you wish to convince me there is a benefit in not arguing.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Ophiolite

[Phi for All]

Your alternatives may be ignoring all the arguable stuff and determine for yourself what you personally believe I might be interested in learning as you have above.

If it's opinion, I can ignore it or not if I don't agree. I have no problem with that.

 

When it's demonstrably incorrect but stated as fact, however, I think we all have a duty to argue against it. Especially here, in print, because others will come along to read what was stated incorrectly. Passing along quickly-formed misinformation instead of digging deeper for more accurate detailed explanations is one of our modern society's greatest shortcomings, imo.

[Frontie]

But that's not what your quote from Descartes said. He assumes there is an 'I' that thinks, but those who investigate their minds report that there is no 'I' that thinks. Big topic though, and probably best left for another discussion.

I think, therefore I am.

 

Let's, so we feel sufficiently removed from the quote, replace 'I' with this, Ͽ – a symbol I found in the MS Word symbol database a while ago. I'm sure you'll agree it looks like a single, horizontal tit – which is a great reason to use it.

 

Ͽ thinks, therefore Ͽ is.

 

Whatever Ͽ is – a human, a shovel, a cool dusk breeze – if it is capable of introspection, in fact of any degree of consideration what so ever, it can be certain it exists as a sentient being. It doesn't have to know what it is, just that it is.

 

Come on, that's bulletproof, no?

[CaptainPanic]

I think, therefore I am.

 

Let's, so we feel sufficiently removed from the quote, replace 'I' with this, Ͽ – a symbol I found in the MS Word symbol database a while ago. I'm sure you'll agree it looks like a single, horizontal tit – which is a great reason to use it.

 

Ͽ thinks, therefore Ͽ is.

 

Whatever Ͽ is – a human, a shovel, a cool dusk breeze – if it is capable of introspection, in fact of any degree of consideration what so ever, it can be certain it exists as a sentient being. It doesn't have to know what it is, just that it is.

 

Come on, that's bulletproof, no?

I disagree.

Ͽ thinks, therefore Ͽ drives a yellow bicycle.

 

See? I just argued. There's a huge difference between not being able to argue about something, and not being able to win the argument.

 

You would have won the argument that I just started. But I started the argument by disagreeing.

 

It might be bulletproof, but it can't stand up against sharks with frickin' lasers.

[whisperingplant]

Your intial posts appeared to state the opposite of this. It is incidental whether or not this was your thinking, that was the appearance of your thinking. Now you have either changed your thoughts on this point, or have been able to clarify your thoughts on this point. The discussion has moved forward; all participants are better informed.

 

How was this progress achieved? Through the process of argument. You offer an alternative approach that has multiple deficiencies. It is indirect. It is slow. It tends to confuse as it offers no mechanism for rapid clarification. It depends on the speaker guessing what the listener would be interested in, rather than exploring it directly. You will need to present a better argument if you wish to convince me there is a benefit in not arguing.

 

 

I dont believe you read my initial post correctly. Argument is a form of conversation that should be avoided. You seem to have confused it with argument as a form of determining whatever it is you want , like whether a does a equal b. You are so busy pushing and prodding any argument that you are missing the conversation. You continually misinterpret and misdirect which indicates tactical use of bewildering the reader as to what is occurring.

 

It becomes quite difficult for a person to maintain a complete understanding of all these posts( separate conversations ) but if you want to micro read into it understand I am not socrates or his equivalent. You are most welcome to avoid this topic and start your own and I may read that and contribute.

 

The topic here is a question not a statement. I personally rate other conversational devices such as wit, statement of fact, quoting much more worthwhile than argument. When you talk at me the way you do I am not interested at all in you and you display to everyone else what they may expect.

[Frontie]

I disagree.

Ͽ thinks, therefore Ͽ drives a yellow bicycle.

 

See? I just argued. There's a huge difference between not being able to argue about something, and not being able to win the argument.

 

You would have won the argument that I just started. But I started the argument by disagreeing.

 

It might be bulletproof, but it can't stand up against sharks with frickin' lasers.

Ah, well it's beyond doubt that anything is literally arguable.

 

"Cogito ergo sum."

 

"I disagree."

 

Job done.

 

A few minutes ago, I had an odd thought. Slightly off topic, but imagine if for just one day you attempted to correct everything anybody said that was incorrect or even, slightly off the mark.

 

I'll give you an example. I was explaining to the cleaner, that I wanted to leave on time but that the motorway was jammed and there was no way I'd be off on time if it didn't clear up. He said, as he was walking away, "I'll keep my fingers crossed for you." Can you imagine how awkward it would have been, if I'd have asked why – and then gone into the fallacies of superstition?

[whisperingplant]

Ah, well it's beyond doubt that anything is literally arguable.

 

"Cogito ergo sum."

 

"I disagree."

 

Job done.

 

A few minutes ago, I had an odd thought. Slightly off topic, but imagine if for just one day you attempted to correct everything anybody said that was incorrect or even, slightly off the mark.

 

I'll give you an example. I was explaining to the cleaner, that I wanted to leave on time but that the motorway was jammed and there was no way I'd be off on time if it didn't clear up. He said, as he was walking away, "I'll keep my fingers crossed for you." Can you imagine how awkward it would have been, if I'd have asked why – and then gone into the fallacies of superstition?

 

I have enjoyed this post.

In this case you would say thanks, I appreciate it.

[CaptainPanic]

Ah, well it's beyond doubt that anything is literally arguable.

 

"Cogito ergo sum."

 

"I disagree."

 

Job done.

Yup. That's my point exactly.

 

A few minutes ago, I had an odd thought. Slightly off topic, but imagine if for just one day you attempted to correct everything anybody said that was incorrect or even, slightly off the mark.

 

I'll give you an example. I was explaining to the cleaner, that I wanted to leave on time but that the motorway was jammed and there was no way I'd be off on time if it didn't clear up. He said, as he was walking away, "I'll keep my fingers crossed for you." Can you imagine how awkward it would have been, if I'd have asked why – and then gone into the fallacies of superstition?

And the cleaner might respond that your certainty ("there was no way") of not being off on time was based on a very limited set of assumptions which are inadequate to be 100% certain about the outcome.

 

Or he might get annoyed with you, and just kick you out.

[Frontie]

Yup. That's my point exactly.

 

 

And the cleaner might respond that your certainty ("there was no way") of not being off on time was based on a very limited set of assumptions which are inadequate to be 100% certain about the outcome.

 

Or he might get annoyed with you, and just kick you out.

Okay, okay, we've established nothing is inarguable, literally. Now you're just being argumentative!

 

[imatfaal]

Okay, okay, we've established nothing is inarguable, literally. Now you're just being argumentative!

 

 

"nothing is inarguable" - but we have spent the last two days arguing over nothing, and now you say it is inarguable!

[PeterJ]

I think, therefore I am.

 

Let's, so we feel sufficiently removed from the quote, replace 'I' with this, Ͽ a symbol I found in the MS Word symbol database a while ago. I'm sure you'll agree it looks like a single, horizontal tit which is a great reason to use it.

 

Ͽ thinks, therefore Ͽ is.

Hmm. This is tautological, so doesn't count. You have defined x as a thinker used this defintion to show that there is such a x. I could argue that nothing thinks and there is no such x, and you wouldn't be able to show otherwise. (As has already been pointed out).

 

Whatever Ͽ is a human, a shovel, a cool dusk breeze if it is capable of introspection, in fact of any degree of consideration what so ever, it can be certain it exists as a sentient being. It doesn't have to know what it is, just that it is.

 

Come on, that's bulletproof, no?

According to Buddhists sentient beings do not really exist, so no, not bulletproof. According to this doctrine there is only one phenomenon of which we can say it 'is'. So lots of people would argue with this one. If you said 'it is in a way' or 'in a sense' that might do it. And that's a big 'If'.

 

I supect the problem is more straightforward than we're making it. Logic cannot prove anything abouty reality, so when we make a statemement about reality it will always be arguable. When we use logic to make a statement about the consequences of logic then it may be inarguable, but then it is analytic or tautological, requiring the agreed axiomata mentioned earlier, and we can always argue with an axiom. It seems to me that the IF in an IF-THEN argument is there precisely because the statement that follows is arguable.

 

I would not say that just refusing to accept a statement is to argue with it, as has been suggested. I presume by 'argument' here we mean what a mathematician would mean by it. Otherwise it's trivially true that all staments are arguable.

 

I would argue that arguing about whether we must always argue is an argument too far.

Edited October 28, 2011 by PeterJ