> 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: I disagree. As mentioned to dmb - *huge* chunks of Lila (most of the book) - would never be written if we spend no time understanding folks values. What people value - what's a good life - living a good life - that's the whole point of philosophy. > 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. djh responds: The goal of winning isn't the problem with dialectic(though it does come with the territory). The problem with dialectic is that it has truth as its goal at the expense of quality. Truth isn't meant to be before what's good. Dialectic(Socrates) puts it there and in the process neglects the values of the interlocutors. It is a very rare case when someone has ill intentions - by neglecting values however - dialectic has no trouble with assuming that ill intentions are par for the course. A strawman is more than a failure to address content. A strawman is the accusation that you are making an argument appear weaker than it actually is. As I explained to dmb - just about any misunderstanding could be classified as a strawman.. 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
