Following The Argument Where It Leads

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

Handle With Care - the Traveling Wilburys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o4s1KVJaVA
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

Damn these typos :)

Hovering = hanging over or around someone - staying close, waiting, ready to interfere.
hoovering = cleaning or removing with a vacuum cleaner.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

To burning ghost

Greta is wise with her words, you should listen up some:

'I left my hoovering behind because said hoovering kept creating the very foment I hoped to avert, to keep topics on the interesting stuff rather than the internally focused. That is, the hoovering, rather than the hoovered, kept becoming the issue.'

I see all your locked 'Off Topic' threads as even more clutter. Space debris. Junk.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Burning ghost »

The principle of charity only works if you have wisdom. I claim no one has that much wisdom to judge when to apply teh principle and when not too.

But I like the sentiment. I really think the steel man argument is more easily applied priniple to work from. My view is if you cannot see any possible argument aganist your position then you’re either dogmatic and/or blinkered for some hidden reason.

I think it was Will Self talking with Zizek about adages that made me smile. The point being an adage can be used both for or against an argument, they are essentially meaningless and arbitrary:

“Many hands make light work.”

then contrary to this:

“Too many cooks spoil teh broth.”

Both can be used to bolster an argument (or rather appearto bolster an argument.)

I’ve often thought about, and wrote about, “How to have an argument/discussion?” With nothing much to conclude other than a bunch of contradictory adages like the ones noted above. The vague “conclusion” I came to was to ignore the “how” and to try and to view my, and other’s, judgements as best I can in order to “improve” my ability to judge words, thoughts and better express the thoughts of others and of myself.

Being angry, upset or emotional means that you’re close to something important to us. If we’re lucky it may even partially reveal itself to us long enough for us to take a step in the “right’ direction. Suspicion and negativity are natural resources on this path in my experience.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Burning ghost »

Georgeanna wrote: October 24th, 2018, 5:34 am To burning ghost

Greta is wise with her words, you should listen up some:

'I left my hoovering behind because said hoovering kept creating the very foment I hoped to avert, to keep topics on the interesting stuff rather than the internally focused. That is, the hoovering, rather than the hoovered, kept becoming the issue.'

I see all your locked 'Off Topic' threads as even more clutter. Space debris. Junk.
Good point. It would be helpful if Greta could show me how to move unwanted posts into a single thread (I’ve asked.) I guess I should google it and find out ... duh!

Over all though they are only seen as “new posts” for one day then they go away. I should probably go with the rule that if I see five or more on one page then I should shift them (cannot shift multiple posts fro multiple pages in one go.)

Thanks
AKA badgerjelly
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

For anyone interested in understanding the Principle of Charity as applied to reading the words of others.

From: https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html


I - It is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before subjecting the view to evaluation.

1.While suspending our own beliefs, we seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or ideas.

2.We assume for the moment the new ideas are true even though our initial reaction is to disagree; we seek to tolerate ambiguity for the larger aim of understanding ideas which might prove useful and helpful..

3.Emphasis is placed on seeking to understand rather than on seeking contradictions or difficulties.

4. We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent.''

------

II - The principle of charity is a methodological principle—ideas can be critiqued after an adequate understanding is achieved. The original presumption of setting aside our own beliefs and assuming the new ideas are true is only a provisional presumption.

1.Hence, we should listen and read in the beginning as if we had no personal attitudes. We should seek to be open and receptive.

2..This attitude, if maintained, frees the conditioned mind and enables it to absorb and understand the new.

3. In essence, we just start with a simple desire to get a point not understood upon first acquaintance.'
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Sy Borg »

Burning ghost wrote: October 24th, 2018, 4:35 amGreta -

I am not opposed to “talking smack.” As far as I am concerned spmeone can be racist, homophobic, anti-religion, sexist and insulting in various other ways AS LONG AS THEY HAVE SOMETHING OF CONTENT IN THEIR POSTS.
That comment was not directed at you. It was more a general statement because it could be said that I hold an inordinate power imbalance that makes my participation unfair. Thus, the only ethical approach I have is to allow others to get stuck into me if they wish, within reason of course, and I guess I was providing gratuitous reassurance to that end.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Burning ghost »

Greta -

I didn't take it as being directed at me. I was merely reiterating your point. If someone insults me I usually let it go. If they repeatedly target me I will say something - regardless, if there is content to their post, I'll apply myself to that more than attempts to bait me.

I actually prefer insults more than vacuous niceties. If we're all trying too hard to get along we may very well miss uncomfortable truths.
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Fooloso4 »

Has the irony of all this been lost? Will my posts about Plato’s idea of the nature of philosophical discussion and following the argument where it leads be missed? Indeed, all this seems to confirm my claim that sometimes the fix is worse than the problem.

I am going to repost part of an earlier post. It is, in my opinion, an important and interesting idea, one that runs counter to much of what we find in professional philosophical discourse.
"Perhaps," I said, "and perhaps something still more than this. You see, I myself really don't know yet, but wherever the argument,
like a wind, tends, thither must we go." (Republic 394d)
There is something chaotic or disordered in this image of the wind blowing things around. It is not a stepwise pattern. It lead us here and there and who knows where. When I started studying philosophy I often experienced something like this, chasing down one avenue and another, down paths that diverged and paths that converged.
It may be that for some philosophical thinking is an orderly process, but perhaps there are some who give up on philosophy because their thoughts do not come fully formed and logically connected. They may conclude that the disorder in their thinking is a defect, but perhaps it is a virtue. The Greek term ‘logos’ has as one of its original meanings ‘to gather’. A philosophically creative mind may be one that has learned to gather together the disparate ideas that flow forth and make them into wholes.

Following where the argument leads is not limited to what we do when arguing with others, but more importantly, what we do for and by ourselves. It is not simply a matter of getting others to see things our way, but of the continual development of our own way of seeing. Socratic dialogic is about both what we do in dialogue with others and in dialogue with ourselves. It is 'logos' not simply as saying but as gathering together what the wind has blown here and there.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

Fooloso4 wrote: October 24th, 2018, 11:57 am Has the irony of all this been lost? Will my posts about Plato’s idea of the nature of philosophical discussion and following the argument where it leads be missed? Indeed, all this seems to confirm my claim that sometimes the fix is worse than the problem.

I am going to repost part of an earlier post. It is, in my opinion, an important and interesting idea, one that runs counter to much of what we find in professional philosophical discourse.

There is something chaotic or disordered in this image of the wind blowing things around. It is not a stepwise pattern. It lead us here and there and who knows where. When I started studying philosophy I often experienced something like this, chasing down one avenue and another, down paths that diverged and paths that converged.
It may be that for some philosophical thinking is an orderly process, but perhaps there are some who give up on philosophy because their thoughts do not come fully formed and logically connected. They may conclude that the disorder in their thinking is a defect, but perhaps it is a virtue. The Greek term ‘logos’ has as one of its original meanings ‘to gather’. A philosophically creative mind may be one that has learned to gather together the disparate ideas that flow forth and make them into wholes.

Following where the argument leads is not limited to what we do when arguing with others, but more importantly, what we do for and by ourselves. It is not simply a matter of getting others to see things our way, but of the continual development of our own way of seeing. Socratic dialogic is about both what we do in dialogue with others and in dialogue with ourselves. It is 'logos' not simply as saying but as gathering together what the wind has blown here and there.
I don't think your posts were missed but perhaps some of us might have been swept away in the undercurrent of the parallel flow or subplot.

You describe your initial thought processes as a student philosopher as somewhat chaotic. I'd be interested to know how you learned to channel or gather together all the ideas you were presented with and those which presented themselves to you. Did you feel that your creativity was being dampened so as to follow course guidelines - or perhaps there was room for both. The orderly and the imaginative.

A play of two parts. Both important to continuing development and ways of seeing, reading and learning about...our selves and others.

To a Louse - by Rabbie Burns

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Fooloso4 »

Georgeanna:
I'd be interested to know how you learned to channel or gather together all the ideas you were presented with and those which presented themselves to you.
I suppose it is just by the continued attempt to tie things together. Asking myself if there are connections between things, if and how they might fit together, or if they stand in opposition. Sometimes I only see the connections as I am working through things. I use the present tense because this is something I do continually.

When I first began there would be l o n g pauses when I was talking as I followed a thought as it developed in my mind. Eventually the time intervals diminished. The opposite would then sometimes occur. In a flash I saw all these different things in an interrelating and rapidly expanding view.

My writing style was called cryptic. It was not until years later when I read some of the things that I had written that I saw that it did not make nearly as much sense as I thought it had. I began to make an effort to write clearly and simply. To make connections explicit and not leave logical and contextual gaps, and to post road signs to aid both the reader and myself from getting lost. I became aware that if I could not say something clearly I could not think it clearly. I began to think with my pen.
Did you feel that your creativity was being dampened so as to follow course guidelines - or perhaps there was room for both. The orderly and the imaginative.
I was fortunate enough to be taught philosophy by reading the philosophers. Reading them continually generates new questions, new avenues of inquiry. So, no, I don’t think the course guidelines dampened my meandering, although time constraints were a limiting factor.

I don’t see the orderly and the imaginative to be at odds. Gathering is an ordering, but I never bought into the idea of systematic philosophy, of knowledge of the order of the whole. And so, if I cannot see how this and that did not fit in I am content to leave it unsettled and not reject it because it does not form part of an ordered whole. Down the road I might make connections, but never a well ordered whole.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

Fooloso4 wrote:
'When I first began there would be l o n g pauses when I was talking as I followed a thought as it developed in my mind. Eventually the time intervals diminished. The opposite would then sometimes occur. In a flash I saw all these different things in an interrelating and rapidly expanding view.

My writing style was called cryptic. It was not until years later when I read some of the things that I had written that I saw that it did not make nearly as much sense as I thought it had. I began to make an effort to write clearly and simply. To make connections explicit and not leave logical and contextual gaps, and to post road signs to aid both the reader and myself from getting lost. I became aware that if I could not say something clearly I could not think it clearly. I began to think with my pen.'
I love this. Your sense, your way of seeing and your beautiful, beautiful words.
Wonderful. Thanks.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Sy Borg »

I'm greatly enjoying Fooloso's thoughts too - really well elucidating the struggle for clarity, to be able to follow a line without gaps.

I have often been accused on digressing. However, I find it hard to analyse the human condition without first considering where the qualities emerged from in other parts of nature. Civilisations are preceded by, built upon and fed upon those other systems of nature. How to fully understand the adult if we don't have a clue about the child?

To consider aspects of the human condition without taking into account equivalent dynamics in the wild is akin to analysing an iceberg's tip without much bothering with its much larger underside, and then claiming to understand the iceberg. The dismissal of biology (and physics and cosmology at times) is a major flaw I see in aspects of philosophy, one that I think was caused by historical delusions of human divinity. It's this flaw that leads prominent scientists to (wrongly) dismiss what I think is a beautiful discipline, even while liberally engaging in scope creep by dabbling in it themselves.

It appears that we humans are caught between worlds - between the visceral brutality of our origins and the cerebral functionalism of the future we are creating. Still mired in suffering, on the verge of transcendence (emergence) from the pains of natural selection, but without having yet achieved it.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

Greta, someone accused you of digressing ? How very dare they !
Isn't it your philosophy they are attacking. Your way is not always the way of others. And that is good and the wonder of it all. When different perspectives combine, clash or comfort...
And also share knowledge and experience in reading the works of e.g. Plato - who I must go pick off the back burner.
There is an argument about poetry in the dialogues. And, of course, it is not straightforward or even clear, like so many philosophical works.
Even so, there is a poetic beauty there - ironically.

------
''Plato's critique of writing on the grounds that it is a poor form of rhetoric is itself written. Of course, his Socrates does not know that he is “speaking” in the context of a written dialogue; but the reader immediately discerns the puzzle. Does the critique apply to the dialogues themselves? If not, do the dialogues escape the critique altogether, or meet it in part (being inferior to “live” dialogue, but not liable to the full force of Socrates' criticisms)? Scholars dispute the answers to these well-known questions.[32]

There is general agreement that Plato perfected—perhaps even invented—a new form of discourse. The Platonic dialogue is a innovative type of rhetoric, and it is hard to believe that it does not at all reflect—whether successfully or not is another matter—Plato's response to the criticisms of writing which he puts into the mouth of his Socrates.

Plato's remarkable philosophical rhetoric incorporates elements of poetry. Most obviously, his dialogues are dramas with several formal features in common with much tragedy and comedy (for example, the use of authorial irony, the importance of plot, setting, the role of individual character and the interplay between dramatis personae). No character called “Plato” ever says a word in his texts. His works also narrate a number of myths, and sparkle with imagery, simile, allegory, and snatches of meter and rhyme. Indeed, as he sets out the city in speech in the Republic, Socrates calls himself a myth teller (376d9–10, 501e4–5).''

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Following The Argument Where It Leads

Post by Georgeanna »

Greta, earlier you wrote about how originality and creative expression are some of the factors important to you in forum posts.
Of course, not everyone has the ability to combine different ideas in exciting new forms. But what a great place to start...to think about it.
How important is it to find fresh words or a new arrangement of notes...? And be given the space to explore. Thanks for being a major force behind and within the forum.

I found this - haven't listened to it yet. Part of the Melvyn Bragg series, Radio 4, In Our Time :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00548vy

The concept of Originality - related to Creativity. 45 mins.
Summary:
Melvyn Bragg and guests explore the creative force of originality. How far is it to do with origins, how far with the combination of the discoveries of others, which were themselves based on the thoughts of others, into an ever-receding and replicating past? Is invention original? Is original important? Is tradition more interesting and the reworking of what is traditional of greater value than the search for idiosyncrasy? And did our notion of the original genius come as much out of a commercial imperative for individual copyright in the eighteenth century, as a romantic view of human nature which came in, perhaps not co-incidentally, at the same time?

In 1800, in his preface to Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth wrote "Every great and original writer, in proportion as he is great and original, must himself create the taste by which he is to be relished".

But did the notion of originality begin with the Romantics in the 18th century, or has society always valued originality? Should we consider Shakespeare an innovator or a plagiarist?To what extent is originality about perception rather than conception and is originality a concept without meaning today?With John Deathridge, King Edward Professor of Music at King’s College London; Jonathan Rée, philosopher and author of Philosophical Tales; Professor Catherine Belsey, Chair of the Centre for Critical and Cultural Theory at Cardiff University.
Worthy of another thread, perhaps. Another time, another place, another person.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophers' Lounge”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021