The Limitations of Philosophy and Argumentation

SatmBopd

Some of the arguments in this forum, and many philosophical arguments have the following format

1. Define terms (pretty much arbitrarily, most of the time)
2. Use logic (of varying quality)
3. Establish (potentially already preconceived) conclusion
(4. Influence basically nothing thereby, accept in extraneous circumstances)

I don’t think this method is completely useless. But I do think that the question at stake is whether or not this method is completely useless. It seems like it could be.

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, most of the consequential discussion probably takes place in that step, which I think is often regarded as merely the opening formalities of a discussion.

Any time you ask the question

Is A, B?

And you get to define A or B, then you can probably make a strong argument for… anything!

Also, notice that asking “is A, B?” is literally only categorisation. It is merely a linguistic exercise. Languages are made-up agreements, for the purpose of referencing observations and interpersonal communication. They were not designed to robustly articulate phenomena, merely to point to them for a pragmatic end. Words in languages are like sign posts, and yet too often, we regard them as destinations in themselves!

Here are examples of questions that I think have very, very little meaning or interest, because of what I have outlined above.

Is God existent?
Is morality objective?
Is [insert literally anything] true?
Is [insert literally anything] moral?
Is life/ humanity inherently good/ bad?
Is the method of argumentation which follows the “is A, B?” format completely useless?
Oops.

(Actually that last one has meaning and interest, just… because, I don’t know. It just does. Little hiccup there.)

Rather than arguing about classifications and terms, unless it is done with as much precision as to be scientific, (and even then, the utility of the discussion is necessarily limited due to its specificity) I think all (or most) philosophical discussion should revolve around the attempted articulation (and perhaps even creation) of values and experiences. I think that this is pretty much what is undertaken when we try to define anything anyway. As such, communication generally, and not argumentation specifically, is paramount to the contemplation of higher things.

To demonstrate, here are some attempts at questions/ observations I think do have substantial interest.

What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why?
What phenomena is morality trying to comprehend/ address? Is it possible to comprehend/ address these phenomena in other/ better ways?
What are the differences between my worldview and others’? Are these differences reconcilable? How or why not?
What is the furthest extent of the capacities/ limitations of humanity?
What are the capacities/ limitations of argumentation/ philosophy? Is there anything else that can exceed these capacities/ limitations?

Anyway, hopefully my point is sort of getting across. What do you think?

Jackson

The way I would explain a philosophical argument is:

1. X is true. (Here is what I think.)
2. Here is why X is true. (Reasons.)
3. Some say X is false, here is why they are wrong.

Jackson

What a philosophical argument is not:

Posting someone's text without explaining how it is evidence for your argument..
Posting a link to something and saying, read this.

SatmBopd

↪Jackson

Haha fair.

dclements

To demonstrate, here are some attempts at questions/ observations I think do have substantial interest.

What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why? — SatmBopd

To the best of human knowledge (at the present time) "God" ,as he is defined by Abrahamic religions, does not exist. Why this is would require a very lengthy discussion which is a bit beyond this thread but if need an explanation I suggest creating another thread to address this issue.

What phenomena is morality trying to comprehend/ address? Is it possible to comprehend/ address these phenomena in other/ better ways? — SatmBopd

"Morality" as well as "good/evil" are just mental projection we create in order to rationalize why we do certain actions instead of others. In a nutshell, it is merely a tool we use in order to help us survive an beyond that it really doesn't have meaning.

What are the differences between my worldview and others’? Are these differences reconcilable? How or why not? — SatmBopd

You have your religious beliefs or system of beliefs and other people have theirs. If you can understand other peoples system of beliefs (religious or otherwise) as well as they understand them then they are somewhat reconcilable. How you go about this is a bit up to you.

What is the furthest extent of the capacities/ limitations of humanity? — SatmBopd

One can understand the current limitations of humanity to some degree, but it is pretty much a given that we can not answer what the limitations of humanity either hundreds or thousands of years from now since we don't know what technology or information will be available to human beings at that time. When one is presented with issues which require knowledge that is not available all one can do is simply understand that such questions do not have answers.

What are the capacities/ limitations of argumentation/ philosophy? Is there anything else that can exceed these capacities/ limitations? — SatmBopd

I don't know much about Post-Modern philosophy, but I think this is a question that is brought up in such discussions. I can't say that you will find the answers you seek if you study such a subject but it is the only things I can think of at the moment.

After reading your questions the only question I have is what is it that you seek to achieve or learn by asking them? For me I'm kind of curious as to whether you are someone that has studied philosophy for some time and has now decided to try to check out the peripheral aspects of it or whether you are someone new and just desire to try and jump into the deep end.

In a way the questions you are not that different then other more simple philosophical questions other than one must be able to shift from one paradigm or narrative with ease in order to be able to be comfortable with the possible answers when trying to address such things.

Agent Smith

Leibniz wanted to reduce all discourse to a mechanical calculus (logic). His objective? Pax Mundi i.e. if there's war and there is war, logic, by extension philosophy & argumentation, is an epic fail! Wouldn't you agree?

unenlightened

A philosophy is not an argument, but a way of thinking about things. This is the way I think about philosophy anyway. An argument can sometimes be made that one way of thinking about things is better than another, but such arguments are not usually compelling. This may explain the appearance of futility discerned by the op. But there is much potential for a slower and more diffuse influence, such that questions that seemed to have a clear and definite right answer come to be seen as not even being clear and definite questions.
Thinking about philosophy in terms of questions with many possible answers, and those answers as ways of thinking and ways of living, may prove more fruitful than focusing on arguments and definitions.

Jackson

Thinking about philosophy in terms of questions with many possible answers, and those answers as ways of thinking and ways of living, may prove more fruitful than focusing on arguments and definitions. — unenlightened

It is both, no?

T Clark

What do you think? — SatmBopd

A well-thought-out and clearly expressed argument I find myself disagreeing with, at least in part.

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, most of the consequential discussion probably takes place in that step, which I think is often regarded as merely the opening formalities of a discussion. — SatmBopd

Agree with this.

Rather than arguing about classifications and terms, unless it is done with as much precision as to be scientific, (and even then, the utility of the discussion is necessarily limited due to its specificity) I think all (or most) philosophical discussion should revolve around the attempted articulation (and perhaps even creation) of values and experiences. — SatmBopd

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is where we disagree. I have said many times that the major problem with many, perhaps most, discussions here on the forum is the failure to define terms. People assume they know what words mean and that others have the same understanding. Then there is a long, convoluted, pointless argument with different people talking about different things as if they are the same. Prime example - consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, self-consciousness, awareness, attention, thinking, cognition, introspection, reasoning, rationalization.

When I start a discussion, I want to talk about the specific thing I have in mind. I want other people to be using the terms I use in the same way I am. I don't want long arguments about what words mean, unless that is the specific point of the discussion.

SatmBopd

When I start a discussion, I want to talk about the specific thing I have in mind. I want other people to be using the terms I use in the same way I am. I don't want long arguments about what words mean, unless that is the specific point of the discussion. — T Clark

Yes, you raise a very good point here. But I think it speaks to a larger, seldom talked about problem. If I agree to use the definitions you are using, I already have to just accept (probably without fully understanding) that element of your worldview. Or if both of us make some communicative sacrifice to agree upon a definition that is popular, or another philosopher articualtes well, then we are already taking for granted the substantial claim that these definitions are the best, or most relavent ones.

I think the problem of interpersonal communication, particularly of abstract concepts is still an unsolved one. Even nuanced and agreed upon definitions don't solve it. The defninitions we priveldege already speaks to our values and interpritations, this is why I think it would be useful to find a way to discuss these values and interpretiations directly, or at least more honestly (bearing in mind that we will proably still have to use words with potentially varying definitions to do this, hence, the cyclical nature and difficulty of the problem).

But I do agree with you, that failing to awknoledge differing definitions at all just leads to random arguments about nothing. And if one person stubbornly insists on their definition and the other person subbornly insists on a different one, that conversation is probably going nowhere, haha.

Joshs

↪SatmBopd

If I agree to use the definitions you are using, I already have to just accept (probably without fully understanding) that element of your worldview. — SatmBopd

I have found that very few on this site understand the significance of the concept of worldview for ascertaining truth in philosophy and science, which is why so many cling to predicate logic , true-false statements and belief in transparent definition of terms, as if that were an obvious starting point rather than a never fully realizable end goal of discussion.

SatmBopd

↪dclements

I guess the gist of my arguement is that humans (including philosophers) take things for granted, too many things if what we want is to actually understand the truth, or maximally explore our mental (even physical) capacities.

What I am trying (and proably? failing) to achive with this agrument, and those proposed questions is to investigate which things are being taken for granted, and which of the things which are taken for granted shouldn't be.

(I am (sort of?) new to philosophy, a few university courses, a few books (mostly Nietzsche) and many YouTube lecutrues of my own interest, primarily concerning post-modernism, existentialism, and gereral histroy/ overview of (mostly western) philosophy).

SatmBopd

↪Joshs

Yeah I think that's sort of what I was trying to articulate.

jgill

What I see on TPF sometimes is a circular argument beginning with hypotheses and ending with hypotheses.

Agent Smith

It is both, no? — Jackson

No, it'a booth! :snicker:

Agent Smith

Clearly, philosophy was a step forward in the right direction; rationality was made the cornerstone of all knowledge.

The problem with philosophy is Agrippa's trilemma!

Joshs

↪Agent Smith

Clearly, philosophy was a step forward in the right direction; rationality was made the cornerstone of all knowledge. — Agent Smith

And again in the 20th and 21st centuries philosophy takes a step in the right direction, problematizing concepts like rationality and knowledge.

T Clark

we are already taking for granted the substantial claim that these definitions are the best, or most relavent ones. — SatmBopd

When I set out the terms of discussion in the OP, I often, generally, have very specific things I want to talk about. You may notice that I try to ride herd on my own discussions to keep them on the track I intended. When I am participating in someone else's discussion, I try, usually if not always successfully, to follow the terms they've set out. If someone doesn't want to talk about things in the terms I do, they can go to another discussion or start one of their own.

I've found that the best discussions, either my own or someone else's, have the terms of the discussion well laid out, including definitions of terms if those are likely to be confused.

Jackson

I've found that the best discussions, either my own or someone else's, have the terms of the discussion well laid out, including definitions of terms if those are likely to be confused — T Clark

Exactly. "Are we talking about the same thing?"

L'éléphant

Posting a link to something and saying, read this. — Jackson

This is acceptable if another poster is asking for supporting works.

My pet peeve: Someone posting swathes of paragraphs, a lengthy, well-formatted explanation or whatnot, but just missing key ideas.

Using works that have been discussed/published before is key to a discussion so we don't re-invent ideas (like re-inventing the wheel when there are already loads of literature about the subject).

SatmBopd

↪T Clark

Totally fair, I think that strategy does yeild good discussions. I'm sceptical that it will lead us to truth or the best possible discussions/ ideas... but there is alot of merit to what you're saying.

T Clark

I'm sceptical that it will lead us to truth or the best possible discussions/ ideas — SatmBopd

I don't think I understand the kind of discussion you're talking about. Have you seen any like that here on the forum as an example?

Agent Smith

And again in the 20th and 21st centuries philosophy takes a step in the right direction, problematizing concepts like rationality and knowledge. — Joshs

Life ain't easy! Everyone figures that out sooner or later.

SatmBopd

↪T Clark

I do not know of any concrete examples. I know that this isn't helpful so let me do my best to come up with an example/ format. I guess I didn't really do this in the original post.

Instead of a discussion in the format

1. Is A, B?
2. A is/ is not B because X, Y, Z.
3. Back and forth debate about this

Where definitions must be provided for A, B, and probably many elements of X, Y, Z.
How about something like this:

1. These are my values/ belifs/ current goals/ current understanding (may be very specific to the topic)
2. Here is my detailed defense of them/ articuation of the problem/ question
3. Invitation for the other party to pick apart 2, and even 1.
4. Respond to 3 only to help 3 more effectively pick apart 2, and even 1, attempting to minimise misunderstanding

Now that I think about it... (I think?) this is (sort of?) the format that my last two forum posts (before this one) take? I do ussually learn something from making those posts because I try to make it clear what I currently think, and try to outline the specifc areas of questions that I have, and what I don't know. There are ussually several helpful responses.

I know that's pretty biased, just prasing my own posts, but I'm sure similar things are done elsewhere... I think its (sort of) similar to the scientific meothod?

1. I present what I think
2. Here is my attempt to expand/ refine it

Instead of

1. Here are the definitions, lets agree upon those for some reason
2. Here is the logic/ arguments, as applied to those defninitions

That second meothod just seems a little bit more arbitrary to me. Sort of thinking through this on the fly haha, idk if that helps

T Clark

1. These are my values/ belifs/ current goals/ current understanding (may be very specific to the topic)
2. Here is my detailed defense of them/ articuation of the problem/ question
3. Invitation for the other party to pick apart 2, and even 1.
4. Respond to 3 only to help 3 more effectively pick apart 2, and even 1, attempting to minimise misunderstanding — SatmBopd

I disagree with some of what you say, but I don't know that we are all that far apart. I just think that defining terms at the start is an important part of the process. Case in point - metaphysics, especially epistemology. It's at the center of what I understand about the world and I have very specific opinions about what's important and how it should work. Unfortunately, just about everyone has different and often conflicting opinions about what metaphysics is. Most discussions end up in endless disagreements about definitions. In discussions I start, I am careful to explain what it means to me, what I think about it, and how I want the discussion to proceed. Otherwise I'll never get to talk about the issues that are important to me.

I start discussions to learn things. To test my ideas. To make sure I can express my thoughts effectively. If I don't set the rules out carefully, I won't get what I'm after.

180 Proof

To demonstrate, here are some attempts at questions/ observations I think do have substantial interest.

What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why?

What phenomena is morality trying to comprehend/ address? Is it possible to comprehend/ address these phenomena in other/ better ways?

What are the differences between my worldview and others’? Are these differences reconcilable? How or why not?

What is the furthest extent of the capacities/ limitations of humanity?

What are the capacities/ limitations of argumentation/ philosophy? Is there anything else that can exceed these capacities/ limitations? — SatmBopd

I've found that the most fruitful discussions on TPF circle around one or more of this quartet

A. suppose idea X ...
B. presuppositions for idea X ...
C. implications from idea X ...
D. negation of idea X ...

wherein conceptual definitions, arguments, citations are auxiliary to clarifying (fallacies, inconsistencies, biases, conflating suppositions with propositions / ideas with facts, etc) idea X and NOT "PROVING" the truth-value of X. This occurs very infrequently, I think, because most discussions begin with implicit dogma or an agenda rationalized by pet arguments and cherry-picked examples that some P is "the truth" or, non-philosophically, "how the world / reality is" from which then the threads degenerate at length.

Agent Smith

A. suppose idea X ...
B. presuppositions for idea X ...
C. implications from idea X ...
D. negation of idea X ... — 180 Proof

:fire: You should be a billionaire!

dclements

:fire: You should be a billionaire! — Agent Smith

Yes, I too agree that 180 Proof is a modern day version of Socrates. :grin:

Alkis Piskas

↪SatmBopd

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument — SatmBopd

What else one would try to establish with this action? Although I would use the description "frame of reference" --indicating an area one should move in-- instead of "goal posts" --indicating the edge of a discussion area and the target/point/position one wants to create or achieve, which has nothing to do with defining terms.

Then, what's the meaning of "already"? Why, should this action be postponed for later? :smile:

Any time you ask the question "Is A, B?" and you get to define A or B, then you can probably make a strong argument for… anything! — SatmBopd

I can't see what does the definition of terms have to do with the creation of an argument, much less "for anything".
As I said above, the definition of terms provide a frame of reference in which a discussion can take place. Because if you are talking about A and I assume that you are talking about B, our communication will most probably fail. And, in a discussion, the more such assumptions take place, the more the whole discussion will tend to lead to nowhere, but rather go round and round and eventually dissolve without any conclusion.

And this is indeed what can constitute limitations for philosophy and argumentation: lack of definitions, not defining terms as you try to point out.

***

Note about definitions:
They don't have necessarily to be strict or standard. They can be presented as loose descriptions, examples. etc. Whatever will do as long as it appeals to common sense and/or agreement. That is, they must refer to commonly and widely accepted data. Personal, biased or otherwise twisted definitions or descriptions will have a limited application, if any. That's why dictionaries and encyclopedias are created.

Jackson

Because if you are talking about A, I assume that you are talking about B, our communication will most probably fail. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, it seems pretty straightforward. Defining terms starts at beginning to make sure people are using the words the same way.

Alkis Piskas

Defining terms starts at beginning to make sure people are using the words the same way. — Jackson

Right.

The Limitations of Philosophy and Argumentation

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions