djh responds to Dmb:
You have misunderstood my argument dmb. By all means - feel free to discuss
logical inconsistencies with those who value similar things to you and are
happy to discuss them... All I'm saying is that when discussing something
intellectual with someone who doesn't value similar things to you *or* isn't
interested in logic- a logical discussion with them is pointless.
It's tiring watching you two go at one another when you're both talking from
different values.. Until you discuss those values - then things will go
nowhere..
[Ron sez]
I believe what is being refered to is informal logic, in other words meaning.
Logic is traditionaly a tool contributing to the
ability to dissect arguments and avoid the deceptions of deceitful rhetoric.
DmB is essentially saying that Marsha is
Intellectualy deceitful, she does not engage in an intellectual discussion but
indulges in a selfish mission to win an arguement
using any means no matter how contradictory or out of context.
Granted, one may only reason with those who are willing to be reasoned with,
but, part of engaging in Philosophy is
nurturing the love of wisdom. Simply getting off on winning arguements really
is not part of that endeavor, as RMP
rails against. It's not a chess game or a duel and as you point out it's about
your motives and your values but as
DmB points out, if you value winning over the clarification of thoughts then
perhaps a philosophy forum, particularly
this one, is not the place for you. This forum is dedicated to the
clarification of Bob Pirsigs thoughts not Marsha's
her values or anyone elses.
Understanding someones values may explain their motives, intellectual
deceitfulness and dishonosty but that offers
nothing within the context inwhich this forum is dedicated to.
djh responds to dmb:
To translate a misunderstanding into a 'strawman' is sinister as it presumes
ill intentions of the person who misunderstood. That's all well and good to
casually throw around such wild emotive alligations - if your goal is the truth
- but what if your goal is what's good? Is it good to accuse someone of bad
intentions when bad intentions are very rarely the cause of disagreements in
intellectual discussions? This just speaks to my larger point about values and
dialectical discussions. Speak to folks values - then you'll change their mind
and things will get better - but not before..
[Ron sez]
If the true is the highest good, in this case, bad intentions (arguement with
the goal of winning) indeed are the root of the disagreement.
The goal is not to persuade those who do not wish to be persuaded, the goal is
to persuade and reason with those who are willing
to be persuaded and reasoned with. If you are an ego climber with an
inferiority complex and superiority is your aim then you are not
interested in logic, truth and clarity in meaning.
To be clear, the criticism of the rhetorical device of the strawman is to
dismiss an explanation without addressing the content.
To translate or otherwise rhetorically paint an arguement as a strawman that
indeed does address and criticize the content
is to use the term dishonostly or without understanding of the meaning of the
term. In this case Dmb is indeed justified in the
use of this term because it does directly point to the context of the criticism.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
