Philosophy Forums


The Best Arguments of All Time

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The Best Arguments of All Time
coolazice
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 270
Posted 04/30/08 - 07:01 PM:
Subject: The Best Arguments of All Time
quote post
#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
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310
Posted 04/30/08 - 07:38 PM:
quote post
#2
Hey, Coolazice, can you give an example of an argument conforming to your rules? I need some guidance here. Thanks.
coolazice
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 270
Posted 04/30/08 - 07:48 PM:
quote post
#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: 26
Total Posts: 2138
Posted 05/01/08 - 02:45 AM:
quote post
#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
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642
Posted 05/01/08 - 04:26 AM:
quote post
#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
In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer
yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310
Posted 05/01/08 - 07:48 PM:
quote post
#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
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 270
Posted 05/02/08 - 05:39 PM:
quote post
#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
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 270
Posted 05/02/08 - 05:42 PM:
quote post
#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
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 270
Posted 05/02/08 - 05:43 PM:
quote post
#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
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 270
Posted 05/02/08 - 05:50 PM:
quote post
#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."
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



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