A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

[The Voice of Time]

I've found through discussion that it often makes little sense to leave discussions in a dogmatic manner, to produce something without first having gotten past the initial discussion. I point foremost towards long texts which seem to tell people how things are and be more interested in just having them read it and nod or applaud them instead of leaving the text to an open debate where the key target should be to find, in discussion with others, what is really the truth, what is deepest penetration of this object (or should I say "subject") of discussion that we can achieve. It is particularly frustrating to me personally when I meet people who just wants to say things but not really fully discuss it, not treat it as a problem that needs solving and where other people help to solve it.

Therefore I would like to make a call for people to start using open-ended arguments: to start ending threads with questions that leads to investigation of some sorts as opposed to dogma or anything similar of direct propaganda (i.e. slogans or pure statements of opinion which doesn't really make a difference) and to refrain from making few bundle texts and instead write many smaller threads that tackles issues in a part-for-part manner (or even wait for people to discuss your initial threads, if you can't get passed with those threads your whole text is probably doomed or in need of a steroid injection).

A few virtues of this:

1) well-written open-ended arguments by my experience tend to end with more interesting debates as people are able to find themselves more accepted in the environment and the writer appears more vulnerable (in a stance that really makes him or her actually closer to invulnerable because of their own humility in so doing) and this vulnerability encourages and makes other people more courageous in tackling the problem
2) sometime open-ended arguments appears simply to be the only thing needed to make a topic discussable at all
3) open-ended arguments can be picked up at any time if well-written, also, open-ended arguments, though they create a lot of debate, their real strength is that given enough effort they can be concluded quite satisfyingly, as opposed to what I've often seen which is just people agreeing for no particular reason

In the end, I'm far from free from this myself, but I would find it very appreciable and many people would likely benefit a lot if you started writing your threads with an open ending and inserting ways in which people can criticize you and give you feedback from which you can change or improve, and maybe more importantly: make a way in which it is possible to think in parallels for a common goal, as opposed to just struggling against each other for the sake of the struggle. Initially, struggling is likely to happen because it takes time to get to the same thought-train, but over time as both parts show humility and open-endedness it should allow for a closing towards the same idea and where instead of pointing towards each other ideas start going in parallel.

Anybody gonna take this seriously or just skim through it and be done with it? Or otherwise?

[fiveredapples]

This has always been the way of serious philosophy. I think it's fine to state opinions as opinions or beliefs, not just open-ended questions, because what's implicit is that we're offering the best arguments we have for our opinions.

As to how to approach philosophical arguments, it makes a difference if you're offering your reasoning for criticism rather than your opinions. People take opinions too personally, so they fail to appreciate the criticism of their reasoning -- because they fear they will be scoffed at, or they hold their opinions as precious. These people aren't doing philosophy either. They're willfully blinding themselves to the better reasoning. I could turn out to be dead wrong about most of my philosophical opinions, but that wouldn't take away from the fact that I'm better at philosophy than almost everyone, if not everyone, here. It's your strength of reasoning that constitutes your philosophical ability. I may come off arrogant -- and I am -- but this doesn't hinder me from appreciating and welcoming constructive criticism of my reasoning. Why? Because my philosophical ability can always improve and I welcome such improvement. I also am not wedded to my conclusions. Finally, my ego is so fucking big that a million mistakes wouldn't put a dent in it, so I can magnanimously accept good criticism. It's little people with little minds that have trouble with good criticism. They are always protecting their reputations. I guffaw at such mental eunuchs. Sorry, I drifted into a self-aggrandizing rant. Anyway...

I think we can agree that philosophy isn't going to give us knock-down arguments for many positions, so all philosophical debates should be taken as "Here's my reasoning. What's yours? Let's compare which is stronger." If people would start thinking of philosophy as 'giving the best argument', instead of having the right conclusions, they would appreciate more when others pointed out their mistakes in reasoning. You're good at philosophy if you're good at reasoning, not if you're an encyclopedia of true beliefs.

One more thing. If anyone has done any serious philosophy, they often realize that you are only really doing it when you're writing it. It's when you have to articulate yourself in writing -- and only in writing -- that we attain some philosophical clarity and progress. That's why people who posts pictures and slogans are fools: they aren't doing anything remotely philosophical. I don't take anyone seriously who can't articulate his ideas, explain them, defend them, and question all of them. When your arguments are weak, you do evasive stuff like change the topic, make a billion claims (so no one can challenge them all), speak vaguely and esoterically (so no one can hold you to anything), and make general statements (which are hard to prove or disprove, because they say nothing and everything).

I await the day when someone here posts something articulate and not over-reaching philosophically. I want to see someone state one premise: explain it and defend it. Then move on to their next premise: explain it and defend it. And so on until they reach their conclusion. Instead, all I see is spurious conclusions backed by nothing resembling true thought. The kind of thought Bertrand Russell refers to in his statement: "Some people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." I await the few exceptions to Russell's observation.

Let the carping and ad hominems begin!

[marjoramblues]

...I point foremost towards long texts which seem to tell people how things are and be more interested in just having them read it and nod or applaud them instead of leaving the text to an open debate where the key target should be to find, in discussion with others, what is really the truth, what is deepest penetration of this object (or should I say "subject") of discussion that we can achieve...

...Therefore I would like to make a call for people to start using open-ended arguments: to start ending threads with questions that leads to investigation of some sorts as opposed to dogma or anything similar of direct propaganda (i.e. slogans or pure statements of opinion which doesn't really make a difference) and to refrain from making few bundle texts and instead write many smaller threads that tackles issues in a part-for-part manner...

Interesting choice of sub-forum: the Philosophy of Language. You may well ask people to write or contribute in a certain way; however, even the alternatives can provide the basis for a philosophical discussion, a flash of insight...or not.

The whats, whys and hows of the PN forum - well...

According to the forum headline:

Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.

So, a free-for-all...?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






Fool here...You believe in words?


You believe you can think your way out?


Who is the bigger fool?



"Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know."
Tao Te Ching
~ Lao-tzu ~

"The only true wisdom, is that you know nothing"
- Socrates -







...........................................................










.

[marjoramblues]

It's when you have to articulate yourself in writing -- and only in writing -- that we attain some philosophical clarity and progress. That's why people who posts pictures and slogans are fools: they aren't doing anything remotely philosophical

Fool here...You believe in words?
You believe you can think your way out?
Who is the bigger fool?

Articulating yourself; from subjective reflection/opinion to objective expression of a belief and its defence/justification. Isn't this the philosophical process; the end product of which varies according to the desires/aims of the author?

People disguise themselves, not always expressing their true convictions.
However, over a period of time, impressions are gained.
Images chosen, style of response, recurring phrase patterns, priorities picked...
The depth of thought, sense or nonsense, betrayed.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







............................................................







.

[fiveredapples]

Interesting choice of sub-forum: the Philosophy of Language. You may well ask people to write or contribute in a certain way; however, even the alternatives can provide the basis for a philosophical discussion, a flash of insight...or not.

I think this thread is misplaced myself. This isn't a Philosophy of Language topic.

Nobody cares that something, anything, might spark a philosophical discussion. We're not the blind here groping around for philosophical topics. Well, let me rephrase that: some of us aren't oblivious as to what a philosophical discussion looks like. More than half the threads on this site are non-philosophical. And even in the philosophical threads, most of the comments are non-philosophical.

According to the forum headline:

Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.

The key phrase is "for all things philosophical", so the limit has been set -- and most people are outside that limit. So, no, not a free-for-all at all. It's the ignorance of what counts as philosophical that has made it into a free-for-all. Pithy sayings are tools of the stupid. For every point you want try to make with one such saying, there's a different saying that says the opposite. Neither proves anything. Neither is an argument for anything. They're just cliched ways of saying what you want. Idiots think they're bolstering their arguments by quoting someone else who says what they want to say -- except in a catchier way. That's so ridiculous it's not even funny. Nietzsche can be taken to mean anything, because he wrote in aphorisms. And for every aphorism suggesting one thing, there's another one suggesting its opposite, so you're at a stalemate of opinions. And, really, that's all you have: people finding cuter ways of stating their conclusions. Pointless nonsense.

I left this forum because of the dearth of people who can actually do philosophy, let alone those willing to do it. This place has gotten worse, not better, which is quite the feat.

[marjoramblues]

I think this thread is misplaced myself. This isn't a Philosophy of Language topic.
M: Perhaps Voice can explain his choice.

Nobody cares that something, anything, might spark a philosophical discussion. We're not the blind here groping around for philosophical topics.
M: If nobody cares about philosophical sparks, then they have no sense of wonder or wish to explore outwith their own mind. I, for one, care about potential learning experiences. Having one's eyes opened, or being inspired, is not the same as groping for a philo topic.

Well, let me rephrase that: some of us aren't oblivious as to what a philosophical discussion looks like. More than half the threads on this site are non-philosophical. And even in the philosophical threads, most of the comments are non-philosophical.
M: If you are talking about scholastic philosophy with its analytical methodology, then I would agree that there is a lack. However, I believe that the PN forum is about enabling those interested in philosophy to meet and discuss views on Life, the Universe, whatever...
And, hopefully, to be open to listening and perhaps even re-thinking, depending on challenges to these views...

According to the forum headline:
Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.

The key phrase is "for all things philosophical",
M: hmmm, yes - people seem not to care too much about the add-on 'especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now'. To closely read, analyse and discuss...
why don't you show us the way?

so the limit has been set -- and most people are outside that limit. So, no, not a free-for-all at all. It's the ignorance of what counts as philosophical that has made it into a free-for-all.
M: So, this could turn into a 'What is P/philosophy?' discussion...again...
Perhaps it would beneficial if the PN forum team would clarify in its 'Welcome' what they mean by 'all things philosophical' for those ignorant...

...for every aphorism suggesting one thing, there's another one suggesting its opposite, so you're at a stalemate of opinions.
M: There will always be polar opposites; this is what is fascinating about philosophy. Without the extremes of - let's say yourself and Bill - and trying to find a balance, how do we clarify our own ideas?

I left this forum because of the dearth of people who can actually do philosophy, let alone those willing to do it. This place has gotten worse, not better, which is quite the feat.
M: People come and go; the PN forum has an attraction all its own. There is nothing new, or exceptional, in some showing disdain for its content or what passes as philosophy.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This has always been the way of serious philosophy. I think it's fine to state opinions as opinions or beliefs, not just open-ended questions, because what's implicit is that we're offering the best arguments we have for our opinions.

As to how to approach philosophical arguments, it makes a difference if you're offering your reasoning for criticism rather than your opinions. People take opinions too personally, so they fail to appreciate the criticism of their reasoning -- because they fear they will be scoffed at, or they hold their opinions as precious. These people aren't doing philosophy either. They're willfully blinding themselves to the better reasoning. I could turn out to be dead wrong about most of my philosophical opinions, but that wouldn't take away from the fact that I'm better at philosophy than almost everyone, if not everyone, here. It's your strength of reasoning that constitutes your philosophical ability. I may come off arrogant -- and I am -- but this doesn't hinder me from appreciating and welcoming constructive criticism of my reasoning. Why? Because my philosophical ability can always improve and I welcome such improvement. I also am not wedded to my conclusions. Finally, my ego is so fucking big that a million mistakes wouldn't put a dent in it, so I can magnanimously accept good criticism. It's little people with little minds that have trouble with good criticism. They are always protecting their reputations. I guffaw at such mental eunuchs. Sorry, I drifted into a self-aggrandizing rant. Anyway...

I think we can agree that philosophy isn't going to give us knock-down arguments for many positions, so all philosophical debates should be taken as "Here's my reasoning. What's yours? Let's compare which is stronger." If people would start thinking of philosophy as 'giving the best argument', instead of having the right conclusions, they would appreciate more when others pointed out their mistakes in reasoning. You're good at philosophy if you're good at reasoning, not if you're an encyclopedia of true beliefs.

One more thing. If anyone has done any serious philosophy, they often realize that you are only really doing it when you're writing it. It's when you have to articulate yourself in writing -- and only in writing -- that we attain some philosophical clarity and progress. That's why people who posts pictures and slogans are fools: they aren't doing anything remotely philosophical. I don't take anyone seriously who can't articulate his ideas, explain them, defend them, and question all of them. When your arguments are weak, you do evasive stuff like change the topic, make a billion claims (so no one can challenge them all), speak vaguely and esoterically (so no one can hold you to anything), and make general statements (which are hard to prove or disprove, because they say nothing and everything).

I await the day when someone here posts something articulate and not over-reaching philosophically. I want to see someone state one premise: explain it and defend it. Then move on to their next premise: explain it and defend it. And so on until they reach their conclusion. Instead, all I see is spurious conclusions backed by nothing resembling true thought. The kind of thought Bertrand Russell refers to in his statement: "Some people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." I await the few exceptions to Russell's observation.

Let the carping and ad hominems begin!

You mean that, which is in kind, surely!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I've found through discussion that it often makes little sense to leave discussions in a dogmatic manner, to produce something without first having gotten past the initial discussion. I point foremost towards long texts which seem to tell people how things are and be more interested in just having them read it and nod or applaud them instead of leaving the text to an open debate where the key target should be to find, in discussion with others, what is really the truth, what is deepest penetration of this object (or should I say "subject") of discussion that we can achieve. It is particularly frustrating to me personally when I meet people who just wants to say things but not really fully discuss it, not treat it as a problem that needs solving and where other people help to solve it.

Therefore I would like to make a call for people to start using open-ended arguments: to start ending threads with questions that leads to investigation of some sorts as opposed to dogma or anything similar of direct propaganda (i.e. slogans or pure statements of opinion which doesn't really make a difference) and to refrain from making few bundle texts and instead write many smaller threads that tackles issues in a part-for-part manner (or even wait for people to discuss your initial threads, if you can't get passed with those threads your whole text is probably doomed or in need of a steroid injection).

A few virtues of this:

1) well-written open-ended arguments by my experience tend to end with more interesting debates as people are able to find themselves more accepted in the environment and the writer appears more vulnerable (in a stance that really makes him or her actually closer to invulnerable because of their own humility in so doing) and this vulnerability encourages and makes other people more courageous in tackling the problem
2) sometime open-ended arguments appears simply to be the only thing needed to make a topic discussable at all
3) open-ended arguments can be picked up at any time if well-written, also, open-ended arguments, though they create a lot of debate, their real strength is that given enough effort they can be concluded quite satisfyingly, as opposed to what I've often seen which is just people agreeing for no particular reason

In the end, I'm far from free from this myself, but I would find it very appreciable and many people would likely benefit a lot if you started writing your threads with an open ending and inserting ways in which people can criticize you and give you feedback from which you can change or improve, and maybe more importantly: make a way in which it is possible to think in parallels for a common goal, as opposed to just struggling against each other for the sake of the struggle. Initially, struggling is likely to happen because it takes time to get to the same thought-train, but over time as both parts show humility and open-endedness it should allow for a closing towards the same idea and where instead of pointing towards each other ideas start going in parallel.

Anybody gonna take this seriously or just skim through it and be done with it? Or otherwise?

Wikipedia: "The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom"."

Wikipedia: "Wisdom is a deep understanding and realization of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to apply perceptions, judgements and actions in keeping with this understanding. It often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that universal principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions. Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true coupled with optimum judgement as to action. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight."

[tbieter]

Please define an "open-ended argument".

[SpheresOfBalance]

Please define an "open-ended argument".

So you're saying that you only see, being for, such an idea? When in fact you've been against a great many.

[The Voice of Time]

Please define an "open-ended argument".

It's defined in the original post.

[fiveredapples]

If I were immortal, I'd be Philosophy's greatest champion: there's just not enough time to vanquish straw armies.

Pretty speeches about cherishing philosophical sparks are as vapid as they are irrelevant. In a philosophy forum, come with an argument. The start of a philosophical discussion is an articulated thought. This thought isn't philosophical until it's backed with philosophy. Objects, whether an apple or a picture, that trigger thoughts are empty. The story leading up to "the spark" is just a story. Pithy sayings, said by Joe Shmoe or the Dali Lama, are equally droll. Sayings are statements with no philosophical backing, so they aren't philosophical. Hilary Putnam once had this thought: "Meaning is externally determined." He would have a philosophical thought. Why? Because he did philosophy on it. Two years before Putnam, some guy in this forum had the same thought. He asserted it. He posted the picture that triggered it. He later died without ever having had a philosophical thought in his life.

This forum is a tea party for philophasters. My point is that a forum like this needs about ten philosophy people. The problem is that the prevailing attitude that everyone's opinions are equally valid, or some equally noxious Liberal bromide, drives them away. Philosophy people like to discuss things, foremost, with their own kind, because it's not until you reach a certain skill level that you can benefit others or be benefited by others. I know when someone gives the better argument. I have no problem owning up to it. I thank them and progress is made. The rabble here never make such progress because they aren't qualified to judge yet. So, they are bogged down in the quagmire that is their egos and philosophical ineptitude. They are the most adamant and arrogant ones -- yet I'm the haughty p****, right? If you've never been part of a philosophy forum where about a dozen or so people are recognized as able because they are so, you will never know what you're missing out on. I've seen noobs grow by leaps and bounds in such forums. The only hope for a place like this is for few philosophy people to saunter in, discover each other, and become active members long enough to attract a few more.

I'm a philosophical Godzilla. Wikipedia quotes are lawn darts. My internet footprints mark graves.

[marjoramblues]

fiveredapples: Pretty speeches about cherishing philosophical sparks are as vapid as they are irrelevant. In a philosophy forum, come with an argument.

It was not a speech, pretty or otherwise. And relevance followed the previous comments:

fiveredapples: I think it's fine to state opinions as opinions or beliefs, not just open-ended questions, because what's implicit is that we're offering the best arguments we have for our opinions....Nobody cares that something, anything, might spark a philosophical discussion. We're not the blind here groping around for philosophical topics.

M: If nobody cares about philosophical sparks, then they have no sense of wonder or wish to explore outwith their own mind. I, for one, care about potential learning experiences. Having one's eyes opened, or being inspired, is not the same as groping for a philo topic. I believe that the PN forum is about enabling those interested in philosophy to meet and discuss views on Life, the Universe, whatever...
And, hopefully, to be open to listening and perhaps even re-thinking, depending on challenges to these views...

...Articulating yourself; from subjective reflection/opinion to objective expression of a belief and its defence/justification. Isn't this the philosophical process; the end product of which varies according to the desires/aims of the author?...

...You may well ask people to write or contribute in a certain way; however, even the alternatives can provide the basis for a philosophical discussion, a flash of insight...or not.

People can come to this forum, with or without an argument; even if they just listen in...
For me, one of the best 'sparks' came from an unlikely source - Barbara Brooks - who introduced me to Goethe, the poet, scientist, statesman, philosopher, critic...traveller within a great narrative.

Other sparks can come from fictional frictions...