|That's great. It *was* a hidden assumption, based off of the posts that you have written and the replies I've read. When I'm faced with arguments, I usually argue via logic and my opponent responds in kind. The fact that you're simply refusing to do this suggests to me that you're not used to making logical arguments. So, if I'm mistaken, then you should demonstrate your ability.
Keep in mind the above response was in direct relation to the topic of philosphy. Go ahead, check your post...
Now, therefore, I believe I have figured out the main problem in all of this discussion, which, sadly, relates specifically to linguisitics. It's going to be a blow to Delta, but here goes:
Let me preface by stating that I believe that you folks, as being overly logical (my original comment to you) you have chosen to utilize the partial definitions of a word that pertain more to logic, while I do not. There is no right or wrong there.
For this first example, above you are strongly implying that in a discussion about PHILOSOPHY, which if you recall was the subject that I said I was also fluent in, you implied that one must respond with LOGIC, or they are sub-par to you, because all others that go toe to toe with you respond "in kind."
Here's another definition:
Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting
If one really analyzes the definition, one can extract varying meanings. As I have a more open, LESS LOGICAL mindset, I focus on keywords like: metaphysics, chiefly speculative rather than observational means , theology, and theory as what philosophy means to me. When I use the word "philosophy", I'm thinking about religion, metaphysics, theology, theory, etc. If anything, I think of it more the opposite of logic, because of its mysterious and many times inconsistent (non-repetetive, as you like to call it) nature.
By saying that during a discussion about philosophy only, one talks about logic, and expects the person you're *arguing* with to also reply with logic (in kind), it sounds like another oxymoron to me, unless you define philosophy specifically as: technical precepts, sciences, discipline, core logic, understanding of values, a *system* of philosophical concepts, etc.
I suppose philosophy would be very *logical* if considered in that way, and when one says, "Let's talk philosophy", they very well could mean in THEIR minds, "Let's talk logic."
|Are you one of those artsy-fartsy types that go "whatever works, I'll make up stuff on the spot"?
On the contrary, I'm quite organized, systematic and detail oriented, but not to EXTREMES, like you guys, that's the difference!
|Models are what bring order to the model. We have a model of mathematics, a model of physics, a model of computer science and electronics, so that we may be able to type these posts on this forum. Without models, everything is arbitary, we agree to disagree, and there's a warm feeling all around....which is fine, I guess, if your intent to argue is really just to make people happy.
Agreed on all points, except language. Tell me how the hell we're going to get a rule and a model when we can't even understand eachother when we use the word *philosophy*, and when Delta pulls some obscure definition of Skepticism out of his butt and says the dictionary and everyone else are wrong? Also, I never disagreed that a *model* in general terms was not appropriate. I said with respect to langauge and having an *argument* it is. See example 2 below.
|If we don't have a common ground to stand on, then you can say that you don't agree w/ my assumptions, and I can say I don't agree with yours. Have you ever had an argument with a peer where someone goes "ok, but do we agree that...?" Arguments follow a chain of reasoning - A happens because of B, B happens because of C. If we agree on C, then you have to agree on A. If you don't agree on C, however, then you can disagree on A. Therefore, if we can agree to C, then we can argue about how we can get to B and A.
OK, this further clarifies and supports my comments in this post. What does Argument
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <a later editor added an argument to the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c : the angle assigned to a complex number when it is plotted in a complex plane using polar coordinates -- called also amplitude; compare ABSOLUTE VALUE 2
Once again, we can pick apart keywords (which I don't need to do this time do I)? Since you guys are truly into Logic, as per the logic clearly evident in a computer programming mind (you've seen me say overly logical 1000 times now), then the word *argument* is more applicable to "one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends." In that case, yes, pre-defined and agreed upon rules are NEEDED, as they are ultimately dependent. Your explanation provided above (A,B, & C are related to eachother) clearly, loudly express how you view *argument* in a more mathematical and computer-like context. In that CONTEXT, yes, there are common ground resolutions.
However, when I think of the word *argue*, in the CONTEXT of a discussion between people, I tend to think of in a negative connotation, as:"a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT"
FOCUS ON DISAGREEMENT = NEGATIVE
Thus, if negative, how can it be determined first to be positive, via *common ground and agreeable rules* (contrary, contradictory, oxymoron)? The word disagreement is in contrary to *agree* - period. That's why I'm having the problem that I am. I believe that you guys are more thinking in terms of a mathematical argument, or a computer coding argument, but you are using that in the wrong context. When two people have a disagreement (argue) they don't generally sit down first and agree on common ground and be happy on the issue they are about to disagree on - not logical!
So, unfortunately, gentleman, this entire *argument* and non-resolution is the result of linguistics and semantics, which certainly undermines Delta's long time argument of unambiguous, clearly definable words. I wish it was that easy. Wouldn't it be nice if every word had ONE official, easily definable meaning? Like I said before, keep dreamin' HA!