Philosophy Discussion Forums

I don't fully understand what you mean by 'what we see is...the assumptions and concerns that inform the argument'. And how this would differ from a logical process…

Note for the shy: quality of oral contributions cannot be judged from a sample of zero. Note for the loquacious: quality of oral contributions is not a function of quantity, not even a little bit. Good class discussions require more than fluency in English. They require a reasonably civilized conquest of timidity, drawing the line between bashful under-confidence and what DeQuincy called "imbecile garrulity".

They require good listening and good will. You should reflect before speaking, build on previous comments, help discover the meaning that others are struggling to express, be open to persuasion, and bend to the weight of evidence and reasoning. You must be prepared to substantiate your factual or textual claims, to defend your value judgments, to show the connection between your premises and conclusions, and to use the diversity of insights and perspectives in the class to advance your understanding of our texts and their themes.

The ultimate premise of class discussion is that each of us can learn from each of us; otherwise we would read the books at home and never meet...

...Discussion is group inquiry, not merely group talk. We will try to understand our texts and reach answers on the important questions they raise. Group inquiry only works when the insights of many people are made public, giving each a view much wider than they could have had by themselves.

It requires that these perspectives be received with respect, but subjected to respectful scrutiny and criticism. For these reasons I want you to feel free, unafraid, and positively encouraged to speak your mind even when you suspect that others may disagree. You may feel uneasy, but I'll be pulling for you. Say anything that you believe is true and will help the group understand the issues or passages under discussion, especially if you can support your claim with reasons or evidence.

Respect anything said by another for which reasons are given; and when no reasons are given, ask for them. When you disagree with others, don't rest in your opposition to their statements or conclusions; find their reasons and address them directly.

If you accept the principle that discussion is group inquiry, then your uncertainty about a question is a good reason to speak, not a good reason to remain silent. If you don't have answers, but feel uncertain, then you can help the cause by asking questions to zero in on what is difficult.

Identify what sub-questions we must answer before we can answer the main question on the floor. If you agree with others, support them instead of remaining silent. If the atmosphere of the course ever prevents you from speaking up, proposing new ideas, asking questions, or disagreeing with anybody (student, teacher, author), whether the cause lies in me or your fellow students, please let me know. Beyond what I can do, however, students should take responsibility for the quality of their discussions.

If you accept the principle that your uncertainty is a good reason to speak, not a good reason to remain silent, then you will understand my expectation (in seminars and discussion courses) that everyone should speak every day.

To take responsibility for the quality of discussions means, at least, to come prepared every day to listen and speak, learn and teach, and to participate without being called on. While discussion is group inquiry, we are not just struggling for the "right answers", but also to explore and develop the process of this joint inquiry for answers. As Quakers say of the consensus process, aim for a "balance between being persuasive and being persuasible". If you want respect, insights, seriousness, and a healthy balance of speaking and listening from others, you must give the same to them.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 28th, 2018, 8:40 amAnd I suppose we could take it as a wish and not as something that might guide moderator behavior.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 28th, 2018, 8:40 amI think it would be better, given all this, to just leave the only-insult posts in place. It makes reactions to them clear and if nothing else it is a record of what should be embarassing behavior, even if the people in question never get embarrassed.

They tend to be veyr short posts, so they don't take up much space. And it would save you time.

… would better be phrased as 'following where the discussion leads'.

There is no initial 'argument' as such, is there ?

"Now this is exactly what I meant: we must come to an agreement as to whether we'll let the poets make their narratives for us by imitation; or whether they are to imitate some things and not others, and what sort belongs to each group; or whether they are not to imitate at all."
"I divine," he said, "that you're considering whether we'll admit tragedy and comedy into the city or not.
"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."

… make an image of our nature in its education and want of education, likening it to a condition of the following
kind. See human beings as though they were in an underground cave-like dwelling (514a)

"And so, Glaucon," I said, "through a somewhat lengthy argument, who the philosophers are and who the nonphilosophers has, with
considerable effort, somehow been brought to light." (484a)

Greta wrote: ↑October 28th, 2018, 4:34 pm I never used it, myself. I think modding is just a matter of commonsense.

Sometimes I leave them, but if there is a complaint, I delete or edit unless I see the complaint as an overreaction. I treat all of these things on a case by case basis rather than bother with policies since I hold a largely unaccountable role of Forum Dictator, in keeping with the Zeitgeist

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑October 28th, 2018, 6:39 pm Georgeanna:

… would better be phrased as 'following where the discussion leads'.

The Greek term translated as argument is ‘logos’. Discussion would be an appropriate translation in this context, but the term ‘discussion’ is often used in a non-critical casual sense - a discussion of the weather or what’s for dinner. The term 'class discussion' is standard practice. It sounds less confrontational, more cooperative than a class argument which may connote a fight, shouting, and bickering. But when describing to students what a philosophical argument is, one might describe it in much the way Suber describes class discussion.

There is no initial 'argument' as such, is there ?

There is:

"Now this is exactly what I meant: we must come to an agreement as to whether we'll let the poets make their narratives for us by imitation; or whether they are to imitate some things and not others, and what sort belongs to each group; or whether they are not to imitate at all."
"I divine," he said, "that you're considering whether we'll admit tragedy and comedy into the city or not.
"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."

Poetry is a transliteration of the Greek poiesis, from poiein, to make. The poets are both the makers of images (imitation) and opinion-makers. In the image of the cave in the Republic, they are the puppet makers. The shadows on the wall of the cave are the shadows of their puppets.

Where the argument leads is questions of education, truth and opinion, and philosophy.

Book VII opens:

… make an image of our nature in its education and want of education, likening it to a condition of the following
kind. See human beings as though they were in an underground cave-like dwelling (514a)

But Book VI begins:

"And so, Glaucon," I said, "through a somewhat lengthy argument, who the philosophers are and who the nonphilosophers has, with
considerable effort, somehow been brought to light." (484a)

Has it come to light? Here we see another sense of what it means to follow the argument. If we are in a cave, which will not be introduced until the next book, then it is by the light of the cave that the distinction between the philosophers and nonphilosophers is made. The philosopher has come to light at the end of book V as the lover of knowledge and wisdom and the nonphilosopher the lover of opinion (480 a). But if the distinction between knowledge and opinion has not been shown then the distinction between the lover of knowledge and the lover of opinion cannot be made. The image of the cave turns out to be just another image and Plato another poet.

By carefully following the argument the poet’s place in the just city takes on a whole new meaning than it would if we did not follow where it went. What it means to follow the argument where it leads now shows itself to mean not only following where it goes but where it has been.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑October 26th, 2018, 10:29 pm Greta:

Many naturalists would disagree with the statement "at first he is nothing".

I have not read enough Sartre to give a confident answer. I think that what he is getting as is that our identity is not something we are given. We cannot determine at birth what someone will make of themself by a sophisticated physical examination. In addition, there is no god given plan or purpose that plays itself out for any of us or all of us.

Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.

When he is born he has not yet made anything of himself hence he is nothing, that is, not this or that. What he becomes, both in the sense of the individual and as a species, is determined by what he does, by his actions.

There is no reality except in action… Man is nothing else than his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life.

But there's simply too much to take in