[lit-ideas] Re: (No References: <8659f5a00804251733t5680f057j1eb722a0b748ef56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:11:19 -0500
wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
Philosophy embraces, rather , "argument" as - to offer my highly technical
definition - a bunch of statements some of which function as premises (reasons)
and one of which functions as a conclusion. (There is also an inference, but we
need not bog ourselves down in details.) Reasons are called premises because
they are the "grounds" upon which our beliefs and actions rest for
justification. Isn't that an interesting etymological connection? (You are now
supposed to go "Oooooh!" in unison.) This requires "rational spontaneity" - a
condition which .... never mind, I must prepare for the game tonight.
My point, lest I forget it, is that argumentation is a matter of justification
and has nothing to do in its epistemic function with violence. . . .
I teach a lot of introductory level philosophy classes. (An AWFUL LOT of
intro classes!) I used to try to get
students to examine readings for an "argument" in the good sense above,
and to present arguments of their own
about those readings. But after a while, I saw that the students didn't
know how to read or present arguments
because they didn't appreciate the "concepts" being used in those
arguments; there was a step missing, the step
of thinking about a concept, rolling it around in one's mind, playing
with it to see where it goes, finding out what
it is and what it isn't, appreciating how powerful or how insignificant
it might be, and only THEN trying to see
how one could use it in an "argument." This required more than just
defining terms, it required exploring the
terms, seeing them in action, contemplating them. So now my class is
half about concepts and half about how
those concepts can be defended, expanded, justified, or cross-examined
through argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: (No References: <8659f5a00804251733t5680f057j1eb722a0b748ef56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- » [lit-ideas] Re: (No References: <8659f5a00804251733t5680f057j1eb722a0b748ef56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- » [lit-ideas] Re: (No References: <8659f5a00804251733t5680f057j1eb722a0b748ef56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- » [lit-ideas] Re: (No References: <8659f5a00804251733t5680f057j1eb722a0b748ef56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- » [lit-ideas] Re: (No References: <8659f5a00804251733t5680f057j1eb722a0b748ef56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Philosophy embraces, rather , "argument" as - to offer my highly technical definition - a bunch of statements some of which function as premises (reasons) and one of which functions as a conclusion. (There is also an inference, but we need not bog ourselves down in details.) Reasons are called premises because they are the "grounds" upon which our beliefs and actions rest for justification. Isn't that an interesting etymological connection? (You are now supposed to go "Oooooh!" in unison.) This requires "rational spontaneity" - a condition which .... never mind, I must prepare for the game tonight. My point, lest I forget it, is that argumentation is a matter of justification and has nothing to do in its epistemic function with violence. . . .