Does good philosophy need argument?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Does good philosophy need argument? » Does good philosophy need argument?

Does good philosophy need argument?

Page: 1 2 3

Does good philosophy need argument?

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 04/18/09 - 02:00 PM: Subject: Does good philosophy need argument?	#1
Is it better to argue or to agree when discussing philosophical matters? does it always help to have an exponent for each side of the debate, each defending their own thesis to the bitter end? Or does it help more to have two sympathetic listeners seeking out the truth of the matter themselves? Is it even possible to have both - two opposed debaters who are nether the less sympathetic to, and supportive of the other in making his/her point? What is best, and why?

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6299

Posted 04/18/09 - 02:08 PM:	#2
We agree on most things. The interesting stuff is the stuff we disagree on. The aim is to come up with a consistent story, so it is useful to have someone around to point out the inconsistencies.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

ying
I ♥ Scepticism

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1485

Posted 04/18/09 - 02:56 PM:	#3
Makarismos wrote: Is it better to argue or to agree when discussing philosophical matters? does it always help to have an exponent for each side of the debate, each defending their own thesis to the bitter end? Or does it help more to have two sympathetic listeners seeking out the truth of the matter themselves? Is it even possible to have both - two opposed debaters who are nether the less sympathetic to, and supportive of the other in making his/her point? What is best, and why? I believe philosophy is about rigorously developing ones own worldview, and as a sceptic, don't believe in "truth". Reaching consensus is nice, since it might strengthen already (subjectively) held notions, but argumentation might help in strengthen theories as a whole, by showing the gaps and weaknesses. I don't think there is a singular way of doing philosophy though. Both have their place in philosophical discourse in my opinion.
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 04/18/09 - 03:53 PM:	#4
It just depends upon the individual. I came to my own philosophy kicking and screaming and dragging my feet the entire way, but I know others who share my philosophy and had a very different experience. However, ultimately the individual must accept something even if it is only by default.

Schlitz
Hulkamaniac

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232

Posted 04/18/09 - 05:49 PM:	#5
Good philosophy doesn't at first glance need argument if there's some guy whose guesses about genuine philosophical problems are right in every case. But even this guy would need to convince other people that he's right, and he might even need to convince himself sometimes if he falls into doubt about his conclusions. What's the best method? Beats me. I think a good rule of thumb for judging a philosophical theory is how well it squares with intuitions, but this isn't reliable. To quote Dummett, "Intuition is not a special source of ineffable isnight: it is the womb of articulated understanding."

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 04/18/09 - 06:42 PM:	#6
Makarismos wrote: Is it even possible to have both - two opposed debaters who are nether the less sympathetic to, and supportive of the other in making his/her point? Well, I think that the best case scenario with "two opposed debaters" is that they genuinely understand and respect each other's positions, even if they vehemently disagree on the subject matter of the discussion. Each one recognizes the rational basis for what the other believes, yet remains convinced of his or her own side. Ideally, they would both be capable of making either argument effectively.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 04/18/09 - 06:56 PM:	#7
Makarismos First, I would like to state that arguments -- by which I mean premises leading to conclusions -- are absolutely essential to philosophy. It is, after all, a discursive discipline. Getting the proper conclusions is not enough; we need to know why those conclusions are correct. But what you seem to be asking is whether or not we need antagonism. Strictly speaking, I would say we do not. But it is easier for mistakes to go unnoticed when those investigating a particular chain of reasoning already agree regarding how to treat the conclusion. Imagine how different things would have been if (an articulate version of) Thrasymachus had participated in the entire discussion portrayed in The Republic, rather than just the collectively like-minded Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. Makarismos wrote: Is it even possible to have both - two opposed debaters who are nether the less sympathetic to, and supportive of the other in making his/her point? Yes, it most certainly is. Some of my closest friends/colleagues are people I disagree with but bear no resentment towards. And when we discuss things, we don't just point out issues with one another's views. There are many instances of one of us noting that a particular consideration is, at least prima facie, more in favor of someone else's position.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Mech
neo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 141

Posted 04/18/09 - 06:57 PM:	#8
aletheist wrote: Well, I think that the best case scenario with "two opposed debaters" is that they genuinely understand and respect each other's positions, even if they vehemently disagree on the subject matter of the discussion. Each one recognizes the rational basis for what the other believes, yet remains convinced of his or her own side. Ideally, they would both be capable of making either argument effectively. A good debater knows both sides of the argument - I agree with what you said here.
Realism.

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315

Posted 04/18/09 - 06:58 PM:	#9
I think the social sphere is full of inadvertent deconstructionist repore that seems to enforce a "hypocritical oath" whereby to interact is to put one's own satori aside and instead join in the critic vs. critic dance eternally. Many view the tearing down of an argument to be of more of value then the building up of a fallacy, since it is irrational to hold false beliefs. Any "out of the box" rationalization normally dies a quick death at the targeted refutation of a few axioms contained in its postulation. Thus the path from a measured statement to a callous one is short since there is no moral boundary for refuting the improprieties of others. We can only hope that this will create only measured statements and the thread between one statement and another will be short and concise since in a theory there is not the priviledge of editing post debate. Only the whole of an argument is usually considered and therefore the whole is often subject to a wide variety of fallacy when considered in its entirety.

BrainInAVat
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 15

Posted 04/20/09 - 11:52 AM:	#10
Questioning is the essential fuondation upon which we develope our own beliefs. With this in mind I agree with what ying and banno have said. If no one questions what our beliefs are, there is no room left to develope our argument for (or against) the particular subject... Agreeing to disagree seems to me as one of the most beneficial outcomes of an argument, particularly because you are able to understand why a person thinks the way they do. Seems to me arguing what you don't believe in proves to be a very constructive excercise, right?

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.