Arguments (philosophical and otherwise)

0 thru 9

(This was going to be a Shoutbox response, but maybe it is better as a thread discussion. And the subject may have been discussed elsewhere, but a topic search was very numerous and inconclusive. Please show me if the case is otherwise... but there is a small semantic point that might at times become a bone of contention. And not to be Captain Obvious, but... )

Nothing shocking really, but it is the very word "argue" or "argument" itself. Maybe different languages handle this better than English, but this is an English-language forum. Of course, the word "argue" has a proud and legitimate history in the philosophical tradition. "Hegal argues that..." or perhaps "With regard to the soul, Plato give the argument...". And so forth. Some synonyms for this usage of "argument " are reasoning, justification, explanation, rationalization; case, defense, vindication; evidence, reasons, grounds, etc.

But of course there is the OTHER definition of "argument". The less philosophical, more competitive definition. Synonyms: quarrel, disagreement, squabble, fight, dispute, wrangle, clash, altercation, feud, contretemps, disputation, falling-out; (More informal): tiff, row, blowup, rhubarb, etc. You know, the stuff where someone calls security or the things you hope the neighbors don't hear (or don't overestimate, at least).

The question which has troubled me for awhile is: what is the overlap/intersection of definitions 1 and 2? Or is there a clear separation and division between the two? What is the culprit that turns a philosophical argument into a merely squabbling argument? Is it emotion? A critical and perhaps life-and-death issue? Fuzzy thinking? Something else? And how could one avoid this potential quandary, without trying to imitate some kind of emotionless Mr. Spock?

The site guidelines for TPF are definitely very helpful for sure: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines#Item_1

Just thought I'd throw that out for "reasonable rational discussion and explanations". Thank you.
Yours truly, CPT S.O. Obvious :)

Streetlight

There's a very useful distinction in democratic theory regarding the difference between enemies and adversaries (antagonists and agonists) - the difference between the two is whether or not one treats the other as a legitimate enemy (adversary), or an illegitimate enemy (enemy). The legitimate enemy is the one who you might disagree with, but whose whose right to defend and espouse their opinions is not in question. The illegitimate enemy being the one whose opinions are void by dint of it coming from that very person. This might be a useful way to approach your two modes of argument.

That said, the distinction probably works better in a political setting, because there are more obvious criteria by which to judge which is which (which side's policy gets implemented? (adversaries) vs. who get vanquished and loses the right to speak (enemies)). Probably why internet discussions get so heated so easily, because there's no real guiding light to mandate what kind of discussion (agonistic or antagonistic) is taking place.

On a forum like this though, it's clear I think that it's the adversarial model of argument that ought to be the ideal; and that moreover, 'argument' ought to do a little more with giving and asking for reasons, rather than simply pitching differing opinions at each other.

Agustino

That said, the distinction probably works better in a political setting — StreetlightX

I think the distinction is meant for a political setting. Regardless,

because there are more obvious criteria by which to judge which is which (which side's policy gets implemented? (adversaries) vs. who get vanquished and loses the right to speak (enemies)). — StreetlightX

In real politics, whether someone loses the right to speak or not depends on how dangerous they are, and how willing they are to disrupt the victor using that right. If they are both dangerous and willing to disrupt the victor (openly), then they will lose the right to speak. Otherwise obviously they won't. This is so regardless of whether we function under the system of democracy, or under the system of monarchy, or any other system. The mechanisms by which one loses this power is different in democracy compared to, say, monarchy. But it still exists.

Andrew4Handel

I think that it is, or should be, easy to distinguish between the two types of argument. (But maybe it is just easy for me personally?)

I feel that Ignoring the distinction between two definitions for the same words is a deliberate ploy. I think that when discussing issues like consciousness,self, science, morals et al there is a deliberate failure to clearly define the subject or quibble about definitions. Sometimes you have to argue for an absolute age before the person succumbs to an agreed upon definition

I can't remember a time when I have said something like "your argument is wrong because you are a terrible person"

0 thru 9

↪Andrew4Handel

Thanks, that's a good point. I definitely would think that the more extreme examples of both types of arguments could clearly be differentiated from each other, especially if viewed from a distance, in a way that pure blue is different from pure yellow for example. But then there's the green area... Like when one has started an discussion with another person quite reasonably and politely and the ideas and opinions are being exchanged rapidly, sometimes the mind starts racing and the blood pressure is rising, and so on... It can get heated quickly before either person is aware what is happening. Best case scenario at that point is both people realizing the turn things have taken, catching their breath, and apologizing for whatever was said. And since it was caught before any real harm was done, maybe they have a chuckle over it. Now is this outcome the most common occurrence in this type of situation? Maybe not. But generally, the quicker at least one person stops quarreling, the better for everybody, including passive/innocent bystanders.

(But enough about my family's holiday dinners, back to the discussion! :D )

Terrapin Station

What is the culprit that turns a philosophical argument into a merely squabbling argument? — 0 thru 9

Egos and emotion, the latter especially when offense is taken.

0 thru 9

↪StreetlightX

Thank you, that is a useful distinction to make between "adversaries" and "enemies". Good to keep that in mind, and to keep the natural competitiveness of philosophical discussions within the spirit of civility and respect. And for what it is worth, imho the vast majority of the postings on this forum meet at least a baseline standard of civility and reasonableness. During times of political, social, and economic difficulties, philosophical beliefs and discussions can seem even more critical and vital. Which can be a good thing. During times of prosperity, philosophy can be a sleeping giant and its concerns may seem simply theoretical or even like a quaint logical puzzle to be solved in your leisure time. A civilization is only as strong, true, good, etc. as its foundational belief systems are. This is the underlying and hidden philosophy of a people. The work of the philosopher is to be conscious of this, bring it up for discussion, and offer considered and reasonable criticism. It would seem that there is no shortage of work to done.

Arguments (philosophical and otherwise)

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions