The are four basic ways that some one can fall into a philosophic trap. 1) by moving 2) by hedging or skirting the issue 3) by talking too much 4) by ignoring what is there. These go for almost any philosophic argument there is, whether its existentialism, Analytic Logic, Phenomenology, Predestinationism. Basically, what I am trying to demonstrate here is how to win any argument. By being aware of the ways to slip up, you can never be defeated. I share this stuff with you guys only because this site is called i love philosophy, so I would suppose you love philosophy. Again, these are the four things to avoid. Good luck.
I actually thought the only way to win an argument is to state point of view imposible to contradict 
Thats very interesting but it would be very hard to do. For example, name one?
In philosophy you can build up a case for a particular theory or theories, but its very rare that you can have a proposition that is indisputable. So there’s no real way to win a philosophic argument, all that can happen at the end is you have a strong case why something is, and an opposing case(s) of, why it’s not. But there’s no winning only the finding of possible answers and accepting that there is no one correct answer, only possibly right answers.
Yes but in the end the world will make you or break you as with anything else, so in a debate, he who is most persuasive is the winner.
OK… I think this is quite impossible to contradict:
A thought exists forever...Depending on the point of views, it can be proven to be true without a contradiction.
“Yes but in the end the world will make you or break you as with anything else, so in a debate, he who is most persuasive is the winner.â€
This is only true when the more persuasive person argues with another who is acting stupidly
To truly win a argument one must provide more/stronger/better substantiation in & to reality. A debate is not over (or won/lost) when the judgment of more/stronger/better is not clear. Nor is the debate lost when one denies or rejects objective facts of reality, but in most cases this means the end of the discourse.
How does one judge “objective†facts of reality, by objective standards stemming from a objective philosophy. Without which all REAL arguments are impossible.
Regards,
Ashortt, in court we have a jury and in school, when you go for you dissertation their will be a board of stoney eyed professor types analyzing everything you say. I think these examples should serve to prove that life is often about judgements. Why do you think judgements are so key to religion?
TheNomad wrote,
“Code:
A thought exists forever…”
Whether that can be proved or disproved, it is still a quite interesting statement.
He who thinks he has won a debate is already lost. Intelligence consists in seeing both sides of the coin at once, and If we were debating questions that admitted of ready solutions that would not be a true debate. The reasons for and against are the treasure to be gleaned, not the debate itself.
Now explain to me again how i can win any argument...
Extremely well said, Marshall! You’ve reminded me of a passage from Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Examinations:
“Philosophical argument, trying to get someone to believe something whether he wants to believe it or not, is not, I have held, a nice way to behave towards someone; also it does not fit the original motivation for studying or entering philosophy. That motivation is puzzlement, curiousity, a desire to understand, not a desire to produce uniformity of belief. Most people do not want to become thought-police. The philosophical goal of explanation rather than proof not only is morally better, it is more in accord with ones philosophical motivation.”
Regards,
Michael
Nice to here from you again Polemarchus! I frequently avoid arguments in the marketplace, most people will not listen, and i rarely have the urge to be right at any cost or cast my pearl before swine. Occaisonally one should save oneself for a better opponent.
I have found that the more vehement i become the more narrow-minded i am also.
A desire to understand and explanation rather than proof. The late Robert Nozick will be missed. I've read the nature of rationality. He is one of those people who managed to peak my curiosity about game theory and decision theory. There are very few people that are good at math AND philosophy, but i believe he is one of them. A lot of what he talks about could be construed as science too.
Well seeing both sides of the coin is indeed tough, I don’t have x-ray vision like you do Mcdaniel.
Anyway, Mcdaniel, you are exempt from these rules, you are beyond that, or rather you don’t need them because you have a good attitude, and sometimes that is all that really matters.
Hmmm interesting.
This would remind me of one of my principles that I have forgotten… unfortunately.
The thing is, you cannot claim you have “won” an argument\debate without also thinking you may be wrong… For example time may not me constant… but does that necesarrily mean it is relative ? Not one of my best examples (although it’s enough to state my point for now…), but recently I’ve had a bunch of not-so-good-examples heh.
Being optimistic all the time, isa good thing, but without pesimism, and thinking you don’t know everything, or what you say and think it’s true may have a flaw, may backfire, eventually.
Maybe the best way to prove\explain soemthing is in a “team”… as two people may have a better explanation than one.
… At least that’s what I think.
I don’t know about that Nomad, I am kind of losing faith in doubt, maybe in moderation it might be good, doubt in high supply is dangerous to the soul.
It’s hard. You have to flip a few coins. That’s why i’m here, because i DON’T know everything.
As far as attitude, a certain amount of disinterestedness goes a long way. I try not to identify myself with my arguments. Not only must you be willing to fight for your truths, you must also know when to say goodbye to a dressed-up lie and let your strong truths fend for themselves.
Doubt is a very good thing. Years ago Bertrand Russell wrote an article extolling the virtues of doubt, i loved that article.
I wonder if anyone has ever written an article about the proper mean between doubt and faith. (I use faith in a very general sense, not in the religious one). Both are obviously necessary to a well rounded life.