It pertains to empirical arguments and metaphysical arguments and arguments about astrology and homeopathy and alien abductions. The advice given in the OP is meant to aid arguments of all kinds. — Leontiskos
a lack of transparency in argument leads to a weakening and breakdown of philosophical communities. — Leontiskos
I agree with that, assuming that you mean everything should be out in the open and that there should be no hidden or unacknowledged premises at work in philosophical discussions. — Janus
Then, if they are friends as you and I are, and want to discuss with each other, they must answer in a manner more gentle and more proper to discussion. By this I mean that the answers must not only be true, but in terms admittedly known to the questioner. I too will try to speak in these terms. — Meno, 75c-d, (tr. Grube)
Training in dialectics was absolutely necessary, insofar as Plato's disciples were destined to play a role in their city. In a civilization where political discourse was central, young people had to be trained to have a perfect mastery of speech and reasoning. Yet, in Plato's eyes, such mastery was dangerous, for it risked making young people believe that any position could be either defended or attacked. That is why Platonic dialectics was not a purely logical exercise. Instead, it was a spiritual exercise which demanded that the interlocutors undergo an askesis, or self-transformation. It was not a matter of a combat between two individuals, in which the more skillful person imposed his point of view, but a joint effort on the part of two interlocutors in accord with the rational demands of reasonable discourse, or the logos. Opposing his method to that of contemporary eristics, which practiced controversy for its own sake, Plato says: "When two friends, like you and me, are in the mood to chat, we have to go about it in a gentler and more dialectical way. By 'more dialectical,' I mean not only that we give real responses, but that we base our responses solely on what the interlocutor admits that he himself knows."
A true dialogue is possible only if the interlocutors want to dialogue. Thanks to this agreement between the interlocutors, which is renewed at each stage of the discussion, neither one of the interlocutors imposes his truth upon the other. On the contrary, dialogue teaches them to put themselves in each other's place and thereby transcend their own point of view. By dint of a sincere effort, the interlocutors discover by themselves, and within themselves, a truth which is independent of them, insofar as they submit to the superior authority of the logos. Here, as in all ancient philosophy, philosophy consists in the movement by which the individual transcends himself toward something which lies beyond him. For Plato, this something was the logos: discourse which implies the demands of rationality and universality. This logos, moreover, did not represent a kind of absolute knowledge; instead, it was equivalent to the agreement which is established between interlocutors who are brought to admit certain positions in common, and by this agreement transcend their particular points of view. — Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy, pp. 62-3 (footnotes omitted)
That claim was that to move from asserting to arguing involves an increase in transparency. — Leontiskos
It would be just semantics, but it's the entire premise of your OP. That transparency, which seems to be nothing more than sharing/giving your argument, is a prerequisite for a good argument, and by your own logic, it isn't. — Judaka
I don't think you will find anything in the OP to support these ideas of yours. — Leontiskos
The transition from the assertion to the argument makes the reasoning and rationale visible. — Leontiskos
Yet in order for this to work the argument must be seen to be right or wrong — Leontiskos
Disguising or veiling arguments is a bit like going to the doctor and lying about one’s health in order to avoid an unpleasant diagnosis. It defeats the whole point. Arguments don’t exist to make us feel good about ourselves; they exist to help us pursue truth, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. — Leontiskos
In each case the crucial factor is that it be seen, that it be transparent. — Leontiskos
n this thread I am concerned with a key component of this shared pursuit: transparency, and in particular transparency as an essential part of good argument — Leontiskos
Yes, and that requires transparency. — Leontiskos
You're conflating practical knowledge with truth. Not all propositions are about how to get something done. — Leontiskos
Then name the third way instead of being opaque and contentious. — Leontiskos
What does it have to do with the OP? — Leontiskos
I hope the answer would have something to do with truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom. We knead dough to bake cookies and we argue to get at these sorts of things. — Leontiskos
Your claim that <only argument is able to arrive at truth> is not at odds with my claim that argument helps us arrive at truth. You're engaging in eristic, and you're not even addressing the OP — Leontiskos
If you read those two pages and agree that my suggestion would aid the dialogue by introducing more transparency, then you should have a key to the meaning of the OP, which you seem to have misunderstood. — Leontiskos
Bad day? — Leontiskos
Criticism is of course feared because of its connection with adverse consequences. That is itself a perfectly workable definition of fear: anticipation of future evil. — Leontiskos
Dou you think that posting at a public forum should involve no such fear? — baker
On the other hand, if an argument is unsound then transparency will only make it easier to see that it is wrong, and no one likes to be wrong. So transparency is a double-edged sword, much like transparent clothing that makes attractive people more attractive and unattractive people more unattractive. — Leontiskos
but in fact there are also rational fears that need to be overcome by courage, and this is one of those.
The OP is talking about the fear of criticism that leads people into sophistry and opaque argumentation. There is also a fear of criticism that that leads us to write write quality posts (checking our spelling, — Leontiskos
The OP is talking about the fear of criticism that leads people into sophistry and opaque argumentation. — Leontiskos
How about being aware that your posts here might someday be read by, say, an FBI agent or an IRS agent? Or your boss? — baker
I was in the mood for antagonising, apologies. — Judaka
There's certainly a relationship between being transparent and giving arguments, but surely it's just that an argument is a prerequisite to transparency. — Judaka
Refusing to give one's reasonings is antithetical to being transparent. — Judaka
Secondly, you claim that transparency is an essential part of a good argument. — Judaka
I can't remember why I said "By your logic, it isn't", but surely if being transparent means giving your reasons for belief — Judaka
If I give my argument, my real feelings for why I assert X, then I am being completely transparent, right? — Judaka
As in it requires one to provide arguments and reasonings? — Judaka
One must strive to be compelling or convincing, rather than right or wrong, even when dealing with truth. — Judaka
I am claiming that truths are dependent upon claims and arguments, a good argument creates truth. For instance, if you provide a compelling argument for why "X is immoral", and I'm convinced by it, then it becomes true for me that X is immoral. What is determinative of whether X is immoral or not is still subjective, it still depends on how we interpret it, and perhaps your hypothetical argument addressed that. — Judaka
I am understanding truth and the relationships between truths and arguments differently than you, and that's part of my criticism of the OP. — Judaka
I did as you requested. I'd rather describe your post as a request for clarity, not transparency. — Judaka
CS seems to be attempting to be as transparent as possible, it could be viewed as unfair and offensive to request they be more transparent. — Judaka
By the way, though I aspire to disagree with Banno whenever I can... — Judaka
I share his view that truth is a product of language and grammar, the one he is arguing for in this thread — Judaka
But I don't think that's right, because transparency very often occurs without argument. For example, if a wife tells a husband that his father's words have made her sad, she is being transparent and yet there is no argument in sight. — Leontiskos
'Clarity' and 'transparency' are synonyms. — Leontiskos
Can some arguments be more transparent than others? — Leontiskos
Yes, and clarity of terms, definitions, intention, conclusions, etc. — Leontiskos
But "transparent" does not mean "giving your reasons for belief." A dictionary will attest to this. — Leontiskos
Right, and in this I think you are only agreeing with the OP. It is basically a paraphrase of the OP. So I'm not sure which part of the OP you believe yourself to be disagreeing with. — Leontiskos
Then why not do the same thing I asked in that other thread? Say, "Leontiskos believes X. Judaka believes Y. X contradicts Y." Be transparent. — Leontiskos
That thread is about belief, not truth...? — Leontiskos
You're conflating practical knowledge with truth. Not all propositions are about how to get something done. — Leontiskos
There are two basic ways that an argument can get at truth: by being right and by being wrong. Yet in order for this to work the argument must be seen to be right or wrong... that it be transparent. — Leontiskos
I agree with that, assuming that you mean everything should be out in the open and that there should be no hidden or unacknowledged premises at work in philosophical discussions.
— @Janus
Yes: no concealed premises or motivations, and no lack of clarity about one's position. — Leontiskos
I was imagining philosophy as the context for my statement, and these things are context-dependent. — Judaka
Transparency in your example isn't the same as the transparency of a government, or the transparency of a business, or the transparency of an interlocutor in philosophy.
What a business is expected to disclose to be transparent is completely different from what a doctor must disclose to be transparent, and so on.
Though the transparency you refer to was never explicitly outlined, as I understood it, the context is of debates and arguments. In a discussion, refusing to give an argument for your beliefs is antithetical to being transparent. Though, now that you've brought up a completely different context as your example, I suspect even you don't have a clear picture of the transparency you're referring to. — Judaka
Framing it that one making an argument may not be transparent appears to ignore that someone hearing it may not see the gist... — Antony Nickles
They are cowards who don't stand still and take their lumps. As our OP author says, if I "could question premises or inferences, the person giving the argument might realize that they are mistaken, etc." So it is not cases where someone says, "Sorry, I meant to say...", or "You're right, I hadn't realized that would mean...", but cases where someone dodges the implications of what they have said. — Antony Nickles
What I then take the point as, here, is to handle ourselves in a way that provides something for the other to grab onto... — Antony Nickles
Imagining we can reveal all the premises ahead of saying something comes from a picture of argument in a logical vacuum... — Antony Nickles
If you meant the first, then my exact same objection applies, because not all philosophy-transparency is argument. — Leontiskos
What you probably meant in the first place was that transparency is a prerequisite for argument — Leontiskos
The transition from the assertion to the argument makes the reasoning and rationale visible. — Leontiskos
Given that you haven't managed to give such an argument, you are failing to be transparent. — Leontiskos
Well I am talking about transparency in argument, but "transparency" means transparency. It is a concept that can be applied to all sorts of different contexts, and it retains a similar meaning in each context. — Leontiskos
When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there. — Wittgenstein, Culture and Value
(our desire to make “everything” clear beforehand drives us to an abstracted answer — Antony Nickles
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.