[lit-ideas] Re: (No References: <8659f5a00804251733t5680f057j1eb722a0b748ef56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:51:03 -0230
Argument is the primordial element of philosophy. (There, how's that for
metaphor.) But to understand that claim aright, we need to differentiate
between two senses of "argument." One is the popular sense displayed in the
expression "having an argument." Here "argument" is often equivalent to "fight"
or "battle." Needless to say, philosophy's mission in life is to pursue
dalliances with conversation and discourse, and thus rightly eschews that sense
of the term.
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, power relations,
ambulance-chasing lawyers or some forensic field or practice. Of course, many
people don't know how to present arguments without insulting their
interlocutors; and many don't know how to differentiate between a received
critique of their argument and an insulting slap across the face or to their
person. I would venture that most people in the world fall into one or both of
the above classes. This is the primary reason why our planet is governed by
politics and not philosophy.
From the Rock of Reason
Walter O.
Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
> John: Is it just that we live in what linguist
> Deborah Tannen has labeled an argument culture,
> exacerbated by litigious or violent conflict
> models in mass entertainment and a 24-hour news
> machine that depends on confrontation, instead of
> agreement, for news?
>
> Mike: Wow! Just finished listening to Jeremiah
> Wright on Bill Moyers' Journal. Forget Obamba,
> I'm voting for Jeremiah. The man is Jesus.
>
>
> Yes, if Jesus were a loudmouthed, racist,
> self-promoting, ignorant hypocrite who deserves as
> much airtime and respect as the head of the
> American Nazi Party. And, in the spirit of Julie's
> comment, remember what happened to Jeremiah ... he
> was taken against his will to Egypt and died
> there. If only ...
>
> Aggravating the argument culture,
> Eric
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
