The Best Arguments of All Time: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Best Arguments of All Time » The Best Arguments of All Time

The Best Arguments of All Time
Give us your best arguments

Page: 1 2 3

The Best Arguments of All Time

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 213

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:01 PM: Subject: The Best Arguments of All Time	#1
This post is dedicated to a very simple idea that has plagued me during my studies in philosophy. It seems that a great deal of philosophy is devoted to showing why arguments do not work - how the premises are suspect, or the argumentative logic invalid. Great philosophers such as Plato, who tried to escape the non-resolved Socratic dialogues by positing positive theories, have had their ideas torn to pieces by successive generations of clever people working in Universities and indeed by subsequent great philosophers. Which somewhat depresses me. Aren't there some philosophical arguments, any arguments, which we can pretty reliably apply to reality, in other words, stuff that's just true no matter how you look at it? So, with everyone's co-operation and guidance, I have decide to create this topic for anybody to post any philosophical argument that they have personally found to be the most logically satisfying - a sort of 'Best Arguments of All Time' or 'The Answers to Philosophy'. These arguments should preferably be those of a famous philosopher, but you can provide your own if you seriously think they're good. But, for the sake of addressing the issue, and to avoid silliness, there need to be a few rules. 1: Please make sure the argument is a 'positive' one - for example, it is not an argument which successfully explains why Plato's theory of forms is incorrect. This is what I am trying to avoid. I want arguments that show that something is true, not ones that show that it is true that something is false (if this goes well, I might create that thread later). On the other hand, make sure it's a philosophical argument that isn't obviously true (apples exist, or something like that). 2: Please post the argument in the following form: P1: Proposition P2: Proposition 2 C: Conclusion (from P1 and P2) You can be fancier than this (definitions, lemmas, etc.), but keep it to one line per point, and explanations of how you deducted something. So yes, deductive arguments only, unless it is extremely clear that a non-deductive argument works. 3: Try to conceive of counter-arguments, and work out why these don't work (if they do work, don't post the original argument!) 4. If you see a flaw in someone else's best argument, feel free to point it out (this is the only kind of 'non-positive' argument that goes on here). I hope that this project is not seen as silly or frivolous - some of you may think that there are no arguments that can avoid serious flaws. But it's worth giving it a shot. I'm interested to see how some of you respond. Please post your cast-iron-strong arguments below.
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

yiming
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 199

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:38 PM:	#2
Hey, Coolazice, can you give an example of an argument conforming to your rules? I need some guidance here. Thanks.

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 213

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:48 PM:	#3
OK, an oldy but a goody would be: P1: Socrates is a man. P2: All men are mortal. C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal (from P1 and P2). This falls under the 'obvious' category, though. I am interested in any arguments that could be expressed like this which are less obvious (e.g. god exists, free will can only exist in such and such way, etc.) I don't have any arguments like that, which is why I created the topic in the first place!
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/01/08 - 02:45 AM:	#4
Great philosophers such as Plato, who tried to escape the non-resolved Socratic dialogues by positing positive theories, have had their ideas torn to pieces by successive generations of clever people working in Universities and indeed by subsequent great philosophers. Which somewhat depresses me. Aren't there some philosophical arguments, any arguments, which we can pretty reliably apply to reality, in other words, stuff that's just true no matter how you look at it? Suppose there aren't any. Why would that be depressing? Thinking outside of philosophy, I don't think there are any arguments why you should vote for candidate X rather than Y that are 'just true, no matter how you look at it.' Should you live in the city or the country, assuming you could choose? Should you fly or drive to Boston? None of these questions have answers that are true no matter how you look at them. But they are still interesting questions. And they may well have good answers, even if not infallible, cast-iron, must-be-true answers. On the other hand, questions in maths often have must-be-true answers. Either a conjecture is true or it isn't. If and when somebody finds the proof there won't be centuries of debate about it afterwards. The proof will be accepted, there'll be a new theorem and we'll move on. Similarly in at least some science. Either infection X is caused by virus Y or it's not. Suppose most philosophical questions are more like the first examples than the second. Then we shouldn't expect cast-iron answers and irrefutable arguments. We should expect debates, trade-offs - 'if you believe X, then you'll have to give up believing Y' - personal preferences, use of intuition, people revising their views throughout their lives, opposing schools of thought co-existing in one culture or institution etc etc. But that needn't show that philosophy is depressingly unproductive of truth or good argument. It may just show that it's dealing with questions that don't have cast-iron answers. There's one view that says once philosophy develops questions that have straightforward answers, then those questions cease to be philosophical and are subsumed in other disciplines e.g. physics, maths or psychology. So that's my 'cast-iron-strong' argument why philosophy doesn't offer cast-iron-strong arguments for what it's worth. Edited by Cuthbert on 05/01/08 - 02:55 AM

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2503

Posted 05/01/08 - 04:26 AM:	#5
For there to be a positive conclusion, at least one of the premises must be positive. Non obvious conclusions are either derived from a non-obvious premises or from obvious ones, but for some reason the conclusion is not obviously drawn drom the premises. Since the former are of no use without the latter to back up the non-obvious premises, the type of arguments you are looking for, are the latter. I do think there are such arguments, but they are hard to come by. They tend to be lurking at the fringes of language where the extension of subtle concepts have profound implications unlocking the powers of humanity, yet do not penetrate into the mainstream, for political reasons.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

yiming
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 199

Posted 05/01/08 - 07:48 PM:	#6
Ok, Coolazice, here is my best argument. P1: God is undefinable. P2: That which is undefinable does not exist. C: Therefore, God does not exist.

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/02/08 - 05:39 PM:	#7
Cuthbert wrote: Suppose there aren't any. Why would that be depressing? Thinking outside of philosophy, I don't think there are any arguments why you should vote for candidate X rather than Y that are 'just true, no matter how you look at it.' Should you live in the city or the country, assuming you could choose? Should you fly or drive to Boston? None of these questions have answers that are true no matter how you look at them. But they are still interesting questions. And they may well have good answers, even if not infallible, cast-iron, must-be-true answers. On the other hand, questions in maths often have must-be-true answers. Either a conjecture is true or it isn't. If and when somebody finds the proof there won't be centuries of debate about it afterwards. The proof will be accepted, there'll be a new theorem and we'll move on. Similarly in at least some science. Either infection X is caused by virus Y or it's not. Suppose most philosophical questions are more like the first examples than the second. Then we shouldn't expect cast-iron answers and irrefutable arguments. We should expect debates, trade-offs - 'if you believe X, then you'll have to give up believing Y' - personal preferences, use of intuition, people revising their views throughout their lives, opposing schools of thought co-existing in one culture or institution etc etc. But that needn't show that philosophy is depressingly unproductive of truth or good argument. It may just show that it's dealing with questions that don't have cast-iron answers. There's one view that says once philosophy develops questions that have straightforward answers, then those questions cease to be philosophical and are subsumed in other disciplines e.g. physics, maths or psychology. So that's my 'cast-iron-strong' argument why philosophy doesn't offer cast-iron-strong arguments for what it's worth. The reason why it depresses me is because it seems that there is nothing to build from - no Newtonian system or anything like that. Just interesting propositions which can lead onto other propositions. I don't necessarily disagree with your views on the matter. But, for the sake of the board, I would rather that this discussion continue elsewhere, so this board will only be filled with 'answers'. After all, if someone does post something concrete, your idea is compromised!
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/02/08 - 05:42 PM:	#8
yiming wrote: Ok, Coolazice, here is my best argument. P1: God is undefinable. P2: That which is undefinable does not exist. C: Therefore, God does not exist. You're not following the rules! Your argument merely establishes that it is not the case that God exists. That is not a 'positive' argument. Please read the topic post carefully. Moreover, you haven't explained your propositions, or why we should accept them. The argument is too simple.
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/02/08 - 05:43 PM:	#9
keda wrote: For there to be a positive conclusion, at least one of the premises must be positive. Non obvious conclusions are either derived from a non-obvious premises or from obvious ones, but for some reason the conclusion is not obviously drawn drom the premises. Since the former are of no use without the latter to back up the non-obvious premises, the type of arguments you are looking for, are the latter. I do think there are such arguments, but they are hard to come by. They tend to be lurking at the fringes of language where the extension of subtle concepts have profound implications unlocking the powers of humanity, yet do not penetrate into the mainstream, for political reasons. Any examples?
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/02/08 - 05:50 PM:	#10
I would ask anyone that posts on the board to co-operate and not post anything that is not either an argument or a critique of an argument. Otherwise, you are missing the point of the thread - for the idea is simply to experiment with whether such arguments can be found, NOT to have a long discussion about the possibility of this occurring. Think more science, less rhetoric. The discussions are indeed interesting, but do nothing to further the purpose of the thread.
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 05/02/08 - 05:52 PM:	#11
No, I don't think that's possible. Any deductive argument that is non-obvious must have controversial premises, and is thus hard to accept whether valid or not. If it has controversial premises, then you can't say whether it is sound or not. Deduction is tautological, it merely rearanges information we already possess in new ways, and draws logical inferences between them. Which are all obvious from their premises, which have to be non-controverisal to be a good deductive argument, otherwise their soundness will be in question, not their validity. Creating a valid deductive argument that reaches absurd conclusions is easy, creating a sound one is hard. Ideally the only possible deductive argument would be one that people just never throught of yet, never realised the logical pathway. Though if we know the premises are true, and are not controverisal, then I highly doubt that someone hasn't thought of it yet, and it is thus obvious. So, no, I think all deductive arguments that do not require that you confirm the soundness of their premises through investigation of the world are obvious.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 05/02/08 - 05:54 PM:	#12
coolazice wrote: I would ask anyone that posts on the board to co-operate and not post anything that is not either an argument or a critique of an argument. Otherwise, you are missing the point of the thread - for the idea is simply to experiment with whether such arguments can be found, NOT to have a long discussion about the possibility of this occurring. Think more science, less rhetoric. The discussions are indeed interesting, but do nothing to further the purpose of the thread. Gomen nasai...
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/02/08 - 07:45 PM:	#13
P1: Everything that exists is definable(even if we do not know of its existence now, it will be when we discover it) P2: God is definable. (look in any dictionary) C: Therefore, God does exist.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 63
Total Posts: 2568

Posted 05/02/08 - 08:05 PM:	#14
P1: The Best Arguments of All Time are those found in the form P1, P2: C. P2: No one has found the Best Arguments of All Time in the form P1, P2: C. C: The Best Arguments of All Time remain free from being found.
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/02/08 - 08:21 PM:	#15
I feel I may as well close this topic, since nobody is co-operating. It's a shame, since it could have been interesting.
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 254

Posted 05/02/08 - 09:06 PM:	#16
SIR2U wrote: P1: Everything that exists is definable(even if we do not know of its existence now, it will be when we discover it) P2: God is definable. (look in any dictionary) C: Therefore, God does exist. You have affirmed the consequent. That is illogical. You said: P1: If X, then Y P2: Y C: Therefore, X
"A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2503

Posted 05/03/08 - 01:47 AM:	#17
coolazice wrote: Any examples? There are a few I know of but their complexity prevents me from making a quick formulation, and for the same reason it is not obvious, yet they do have the intuitive "feel" of soundness to them, and the question is rather whether they go the whole nine yards or if the conclusion to a degree must be limited. While I'm in the works of chasing the precise definitions, there was an interesting argument put forth by Neri Hector Castañeda over the a priori synthetic truth of arithmetics in Arithmetic and Reality where he shows the problems with twisting any of the Peano postulates. While it does not result in a contradiction, it does sever its connection with reality and can only work with Peano postulates at a meta-level.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1441

Posted 05/03/08 - 03:02 AM:	#18
Berkeley's idealism is a very good argument. (To exist is to be perceived) I will come back for the argument later.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/03/08 - 07:42 PM:	#19
jac you wrote: You have affirmed the consequent. That is illogical. You said: P1: If X, then Y P2: Y C: Therefore, X I don't really see how. Could you explain where I put the if/then.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

yiming
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 199

Posted 05/03/08 - 07:48 PM:	#20
Hey SIR2U, the definition of any entity has to be in cognitive terms i.e. perceivable by your senses. If you can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell it, it doesn't exist except in your mind.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/03/08 - 08:18 PM:	#21
yiming wrote: Hey SIR2U, the definition of any entity has to be in cognitive terms i.e. perceivable by your senses. If you can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell it, it doesn't exist except in your mind. So you have already proven that god does not exist. Please tell us how you did it. The word god appears in every dictionary I looked in, therefore there is a definition for god.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 164

Posted 05/03/08 - 09:37 PM:	#22
SIR2U wrote: P1: Everything that exists is definable(even if we do not know of its existence now, it will be when we discover it) P2: God is definable. (look in any dictionary) C: Therefore, God does exist. Yes, that works, but it falls into the obvious category. Render P2 as D(g) and C as Ey(y = g). [D(g) -> Ey(y = g)] is a valid statement. It is valid in free logic too. Assume that it's not. Then D(g) can true and Ey(y = g) false. In that case nothing equals g, including g. This violates the law of identity (g =/= g).

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 164

Posted 05/03/08 - 09:49 PM:	#23
Even Ey(y = g) is valid. Assume it's false. By the same reasoning, g does not equal itself.

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/04/08 - 05:10 AM:	#24
Because it generated one of the most interesting discussions I have seen, the "God" argument below is one of the greatest I have encountered. The discussion began with the observation that logic texts define a sound argument as an argument that has all premises true and is valid. Then, suggesting that a sound argument is a proof, the leader of the discussion offered the following argument as a sound argument: The "God" argument G1. If something exists, then God exists. G2. Something exists. ---- G3. God exists. The discussion leader then said, that the existence of God had just been proved. If this generates any responses, I will put myself in the place of that discussion leader and respond to the best of my ability/recollection. Emily

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 164

Posted 05/04/08 - 06:38 AM:	#25
why is the 1st premise true?

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.