Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
First of all, picking one line out of a paragraph and trying to refute said line as your sole means of refuting said paragraph isn't the most effective way to prove your point
|
Interesting, however, picking one line out of a paragraph and trying to refute said line as a sole means of refuting said paragraph can be most effective. Especially if said line is one of the premises on which the point is based. In fact, this very basic skill, is an essential part in the study of philosophy.
Quote:
|
Second, doesn't calling out me out for the use of "so what" as a "typical" cop-out argument and then shortly thereafeter using the "well, you can't really conclusively prove anything" seem a little ironic to you? One says an argument isn't valuable because it is irrelevant, the other says an argument is invalid because, you know, we'll never really know. Both sound like "typical criticisms of philosophy that people bring up, usually when they can't think of a worthwhile argument."
|
Secondly at no point does the question 'what can you conclusively prove?' attempt to refute anything. It is asking a question which was an attempt to engage with you in communication about why conclusive proof is seemingly one of the benchmarks which you set to define to make an argument worthwhile. Or rather that by lacking such an outcome the purpose of arguing is solely for the enjoyment taken from it.
Even however, were it an argument, then at no point does it fall into the pitch of the ‘typical’ that I chose to label the phrase ‘so what?’ with. The phrase ‘so what?’ is stated to be the appropriate answer to most philosophical arguments, where as the question ‘what can you conclusively prove?’ is in keeping with, and relevant to, the discussion at hand. I also don’t feel that there is anything vaguely ironic contained in its use.
Quote:
Why would anyone want to argue endlessly about things that
1. they'll never be ably to conclusively prove,
2. they'll probably never be able to get someone from the oposing viewpoint to agree with them,
if they didnt enjoy it?
|
Taking this section as a whole I would have to question the idea that is inherent that philosophy is about endless arguments. I have never had a philosophical argument that didn't end.
With the first outlined premise 'they'll never be able to conclusively prove,' I would question what is 'conclusive proof,' and is it necessary to deem a discussion valued beyond enjoyment?
The second premise of 'they'll probably never be able to get someone from the oposing (sic) viewpoint to agree with them,' leaves me again asking why this is a measure that validates an argument beyond enjoyment?
If these are the two required points that bring relevance over mere enjoyment then is it reasonable to aim them solely at philosophy? Isn’t every argument and discussion, in every form of learning, susceptible to this very standard? A point that tecoyah made in an earlier post.
To answer the question that you seem to be posing of 'why to argue if they didn't enjoy?' I think that the first reason is that it is required for passing the course.
Perhaps the best reason of all to argue is so that you can gain insight into your own ideas. Rather than seeing arguing as worthwhile if it changes someone else’s view, maybe the greatest reward is that you can change your own. Certainly in the very least to have to amend an argument to make it stronger is surely worthwhile beyond enjoyment.
Quote:
|
I think philosophy generally amounts to an intellectually masturbatory exercise where no one really learns anything useful because everybody is too busy patting themselves on the back. All philosophical arguments can be ended with a simple "So what?" Most of them should be. It is a good way to develop abstract reasoning skills though.
|
Your practise of philosophy may well amount to 'an intellectually masturbatory exercise where no one really learns anything useful because everybody is too busy patting themselves on the back.' This may however say more about you than it does about philosophy. Certainly if I was to enter into a discussion with the attitude of already being right and not wanting to have my mind opened let alone changed then this might be what I would end up thinking as well.
Of all the philosophical arguments that I have come across I am not sure that any of them could be ended with a 'so what?' simple or otherwise. The only thing that is ended in a philosophical argument with the words 'so what?' is the part you take in it, and the illusion that you understood it in the first place.
The fact that you seem to find no value, or take no value from philosophy other than abstract reasoning skills, may be a measure of your inability to find such value. It is not however reasonable to assume that they are not present.
As an aside while I find this discussion truly fascinating I am not sure how Unga may feel about this post being hijacked? Might I suggest that we continue our discussions on a new thread? However while I am totally able to argue and discuss philosophical points I will have to leave the technical duty of such in the hands of others.
Btw Unga do you have a question that you are writing your paper on? I personally have only touched on Plato in Aesthetic philosophy and would love to hear any of the ideas that you are looking at. I am also sure that others on this board will have studied Plato and could give deeper insight to the discussion.