Do people value consent in argument?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Guide » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:02 am

Are we, these days, capable to see the most great worthiness of the art of speaking that operates by granting a premise? And then arguing with what is granted by the human being in discussion.
Guide
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:49 am

Are you asking if people think that it's ok to just overlook bad premises and give an argument credit simply because the conclusion is deducible from the premises?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25848
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:20 pm

Guide wrote:Are we, these days, capable to see the most great worthiness of the art of speaking that operates by granting a premise? And then arguing with what is granted by the human being in discussion.


Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "
I like that quote.

I am not sure what you mean by "granting a premise". If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,
I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth.

Is there a way of disagreeing with the other's argument in discussion? Sure, focus on the argument and in finding the truth ~ value that ~ instead of ripping the person apart to win points.

Do people value consent in argument?


Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

You may not have been looking for this kind of an answer but ....
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15314
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Guide » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:58 pm

"Are you asking if people think that it's ok to just overlook bad premises and give an argument credit simply because the conclusion is deducible from the premises?"


I don't think your negative and irrelevant comments have to do with envy. None of us can envy what we don't know exists, and you don't know what philosophy is. Your dismal emotional desert doesn't improve by the means of talking on this forum. Nothing will or could change it.
Guide
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Guide » Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:12 pm

Guide wrote:
Are we, these days, capable to see the most great worthiness of the art of speaking that operates by granting a premise? And then arguing with what is granted by the human being in discussion.


Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "
I like that quote.

I am not sure what you mean by "granting a premise". If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,
I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth.

Is there a way of disagreeing with the other's argument in discussion? Sure, focus on the argument and in finding the truth ~ value that ~ instead of ripping the person apart to win points.

Do people value consent in argument?

Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

You may not have been looking for this kind of an answer but ....



Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "


If you understand this in the same way I do, I support this view vigorously. Though, its implication is not entirely thought through and something is still dangerous behind the warm jungle grass.


"I am not sure what you mean by "granting a premise". If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,
I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth."


I don't mean that. I mean that there is only an "argument" when a premise has been granted. That is the condition under which Socratic discussion is possible. Otherwise we speak to ourselves.

An insult has nothing to do with an argument; insults aren't arguments at all. Ergo, the obstruction of the ordinary phrase "ad hominem argument" (a square circle) when applied to calling someone a moron.


"Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

You may not have been looking for this kind of an answer but ...."


I was, indeed, searching for the far-off much-needed fertility of the underworld from which this poppy springs and tilts its head towards the light of the sun, the human essence, namely reason. And so, away from the gods and Fate.

I don't sympathies with your notion of an individual, except that it means most people are bad in any pursuit, and very few are good at it. By lack of teaching or lack of inborn talent or both. The emphasis on the individual is still not received so well because among those with reason, each one has it. Of course, there is personality, as in Goethe, but it is a subject of irregular nuanced contour.

Still, it remains so, that not one here will speak with me as the Platonic Socrates showed to be possible.
Guide
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Do people value consent in argument?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:53 pm

Guide wrote:

Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "

If you understand this in the same way I do, I support this view vigorously. Though, its implication is not entirely thought through and something is still dangerous behind the warm jungle grass.


How do you understand it? I take it to mean that we are not automatically to look at something and believe it to be true for whatever purpose that suits us. We are to contemplate it, look at the thought from all angles, all sides, upside down and right- side up and then to take another look. We are to be like skeptics and agnostics - to question and doubt.

What is it that is dangerous behind the warm jungle grass? What cannot be seen nor wanted to be looked at? Explain it to me please.


"I am not sure what you mean by "granting a premise". If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,

I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth."


I don't mean that. I mean that there is only an "argument" when a premise has been granted. That is the condition under which Socratic discussion is possible. Otherwise we speak to ourselves.


By granted, do you mean to say when it can be seen that the argument has validity and logic to it?
Or is "permission" needed before one can speak? Nah, that might be too far-fetched.

An insult has nothing to do with an argument; insults aren't arguments at all.


I cannot recall saying that insults themselves are arguments. I do not view things in that way. Unfortunately though often they are used to gain domination over another and to try to win arguments or points. But they only get in the way.

Ergo, the obstruction of the ordinary phrase "ad hominem argument" (a square circle) when applied to calling someone a moron.


I may not be understanding your meaning here. Are you saying that using that phrase itself, AHA, is itself an impediment to an argument when someone is referred to as a moron?

I wonder? Do you feel that an insult ought to be ignored and the discussion simply continued as though it was not there at all? That would be one way to handle the situation. It takes power away from the one who insults - unless that just adds more fuel. I am actually asking a question here. I am asking for your perspective. lol


Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

I was, indeed, searching for the far-off much-needed fertility of the underworld from which this poppy springs and tilts its head towards the light of the sun, the human essence, namely reason. And so, away from the gods and Fate.


That is nice, poetically beautiful. It kind of reminded me of Jackson Pollock's works and why I find meaning and mystery in them. Something hidden.

I can be a little dense at times - not stupid - but dense. Can you explain what you mean by the above a bit more.
Did you just mean more in-depth discussion - in other words - using our intelligence and consciousness to shed much more light on a subject?

I don't sympathies with your notion of an individual, except that it means most people are bad in any pursuit, and very few are good at it.


I was not actually getting that in depth into that word except to mean those who are aware that they are not a part of - let us say - the Borg Collective, are able to think and act for themselves, and do not adopt others' beliefs and perspectives, because the rest of the world does. We do, after all, have our own minds and ways of thinking. It is not such an easy thing to think out of the box but it is a process.

By lack of teaching or lack of inborn talent or both. The emphasis on the individual is still not received so well because among those with reason, each one has it.


I am not even sure if that is true. Do we all have the "capacity" for reason and to reason? How often do we actually draw on that, call it to mind, and then work with it?

Of course, there is personality, as in Goethe, but it is a subject of irregular nuanced contour.


Meaning what?


Still, it remains so, that not one here will speak with me as the Platonic Socrates showed to be possible.


Are you speaking of the below:

The Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presupposition
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15314
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]