Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:55:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1745 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Debate has a specific rigorous meaning. What you're doing isn't debate.
> Rather it's sharing your emotional outlook on matters that matter very much
> to you.
Hmmm...I think these are all very closely related ideas.
Yes, debate has a specific meaning -- but classically, formal arguments are
comprised of appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos. To use non-greek terms, a
formal argument appeals to one's ethics, emotions (or sense of empathy), and
logic [N.B. this is perhaps oversimplified].
So, sharing an emotional viewpoint IS making a kind of formal argument.
Perhaps not an argument as fully formed as it might be if it was accompanied
by appeals to ethics as well as logic -- but an argument nonetheless.
Moreover, I think that arguments based heavily, or exclusively, on logical
arguments (usually involving undue reliance on supposed facts and statistics
that are themselves at issue) often fail. It's great if certain "facts" are
agreed to aforehand, but if the very facts are in controversy, then there
are other kinds of arguments that need to be raised.
I saw the previous discussion as largely unprovable on both sides. I
suppose it's worth noting that even most formal debates rarely end with
people actually changing their minds about an issue -- people bring far too
much baggage with them into the realm of ideas for that to happen with any
great frequency.
I am just reminding y'all of what you probably already knew...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
