> 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.
{Ron retorts}
We ARE talking about folks values, their intellectual values. The aim of living
a good life is developing sound critical thinking skills
and that includes clarity and precision in thought and discussion. We can have
a good discussion if you want to explore what
it means to "live a good life". I suspect what this discussion is turning
towards is exactly this topic and I think it would clarify
things alot to make this a thread subject and dialecticly expand on it.
Dialectics is a whole nother matter which I'd like to
pursue and I'll do that in my next comment below.
> 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..
{Ron sez:}
And all I'm saying is that its more than simply misunderstanding its a
willingness to be clear and precise, that includes taking the time
to really understand the topic of conversation. Do the homework, care enough to
make a legitimate well informed criticism of the content.
Aim for excellence.
Having said that, lets talk dialectic.
The goal of dialectic was, and still is to philosophic minds, to reach aporia.
It is a critial thinking skill that orginated in Elea that
was taught to Socrates by Protagoras I believe, I could be wrong, but the point
is that it was a method to gain clarity and precision
by logically reducing prejudices and assumptions by argueing to the best of
your abilites, both sides of an arguement. Even though
all your values stand pro to one side of the disagreement. It was a call to
unbiasly consider both sides of an arguement with equal
consideration. It aims at the highest quality, and that is the true, the
highest value, the highest good.
Read the Socratic dialogs, it goes on and on about what is best and that is to
aim at precision and clarity in all that you do, its what
it means to be honost socially, healthy biologicaly and wise intellectually its
what it means to aim for excellence.
The straw man is employed by those unwilling to care enough about the
conversation to make a well informed criticism.
It's sloppy intellectually its low quality.
The straw man accusation, which is what you are talking about, is accusing
someone of not taking the time to make a well
informed criticism and rejecting the other persons views out of prejudical
bias rather than reasoned, well informed clear
explanation.
And If we look at the archives....I believe I would not be hard pressed to find
an armful of examples to support this accusation.
.
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
