• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

STOP ARGUING!!

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
STOP ARGUING!!

I cannot count the number of times that my mother would shout “STOP ARGUING!” at one or more of my siblings and me.

Years later I learned that ‘argument’ had more meaning than was contained in those youthful experiences.

I obtained an engineering degree and then later studied philosophies before I learned the much broader and important meaning of the word ‘argue’. When I studied “Logic 101”, in philosophy class, my worldview expanded significantly. I did not realize until later that this expansion of my worldview was to change my life completely.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

Metaphors We Live By, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.


What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

Another way that argument resembles war is that both in war and in arguments there is a great deal of bluff and bluster with little intellectual activity.
 

LeafAndSky

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
307
MBTI Type
ISFP
Great thread title, got my attention.

Something related to your post: the way people talk about cancer. The war with cancer. He battled cancer. She's determined to win over her cancer.

It wouldn't have to be like that; someone could say, I want to re-direct what's going on in my body.

Anyway, you asked:

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

(Very effective, brings it right home to the individual.)

Partially, yes. And partially I feel some of the other things listed below.

It especially will feel battle-ish to me when a person writes something 'universal' that doesn't apply to me, i.e., "Everyone" does something or thinks something. But I know it doesn't have to feel like a battle, that's just me getting wrapped up in specifics and not taking a broader view of "Oh, that's just them."

Sometimes my motivation for responding to a post is also compassion. Caring. Caring that the person has someone who replies, someone with whom to explore something important to them.

Or education. Presenting another view that someone hasn't thought of, a view that might be of use to them.

Some people truly enjoy arguing or debating. I'm not usually one of them. Ever since I learned that about myself and about others, I tend to stay out of threads or situations where people enjoy debate.
 

Rainne

One day and the next
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
875
MBTI Type
ISTP
Some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing w/o getting anything done in the process.

I'll never understand.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Visceral Clutch

The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal.

I am constantly criticized here for speaking metaphorically by the literal minded who want to argue.

But who can blame them for they know nothing else.

Raised by Prussian Pedagogy in neat rows of desks they are taught to interpret the Bible literally. And if their interpretations conflict, they are taught to argue.

If they were taught self expression and active listening, their whole moral framework would dissolve.

But there is no danger of that for any change of direction is met by visceral clutch and an irresistible urge to argue.

It's the perfect trap, where we tie ourselves in knots - ourselves.

But when we are in a trap, the only important thing is to get out.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
LeafandSky

One very serious problem is that our educational system has taught us something about debate but has left us totally ignorant of dialogic.

I think that our first step is for a significant percentage of our population to become sufficiently intellectually sophisticated as to make many citizens capable of engaging in dialogical reasoning. To do this I think that many citizens must become self-actualizing self-learners when their school daze are over.

Under our normal cultural situation communication means to discourse, to exchange opinions with one another. It seems to me that there are opinions, considered opinions, and judgments. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen. Considered opinions, however, are opinions that have received a considerable degree of thought but have not received special study. A considered opinion starts out perhaps as tacit knowledge but receives sufficient intellectual attention to have become consciously organized in some fashion. Judgments are made within a process of study.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis and in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.
Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

“On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
Some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing w/o getting anything done in the process.

I'll never understand.

Webster defines argument as a means of persuasion. If our citizens had confidence in reason we would generally think of argument as a means for using reason to persuade others of the correctness of a view. Since our society knows that force is our primary mode for persuading us we often take argument as a show of force.

I bring up these ideas in the hope that people will begin to think seriously about important matters which generally never enter their minds. The best response to my post is for the reader to develop curiosity and caring about a specific important matter and then in the desire to learn that reader would "go to the books". Alas our culture seldom inculcates such desires in our citizens.

My basic message is "get a life--get an intellectual life".
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
What's the difference between an argument and a debate?




Argument is a means for persuasion; debate is a formalized organized effort for argument as using reason as a means for persuasion. Most people think of argument as being a verbal altercation.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
An argument is held for the benefit of the ones arguing alone. A debate is held for the sake of the people observing.

Not if it's college policy debate. I have no idea how it benefits any observers.

[YOUTUBE="ry4-7cvp1Tc"]Emory v. Missouri State at National Debate Tournament 2009[/YOUTUBE]
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Arguing is fun.
Some of us do it as a break from intellectual life. Considered that?
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
Victor

I am shackled hand and foot spread eagle on the floor of my cell. I ask my jailer everyday to set me free. Finally he compassionately sets me free.

For days I am exhilarated with the ability to freely pace about my cell. After a few weeks I begin to beg my jailer to set me free. After weeks he, being a compassionate man, sets me free from my cell.

For days I am exhilarated at the freedom to wonder about and speak with other inmates. After several weeks I begin to beg my jailer to free me and finally he relents and releases me from jail. I am overwhelmed with the sense of freedom until I, overcome with hunger and basic needs, seek some work so as to feed myself.

I find a job working on an assembly line and am exhilarated at the new found freedom. After a year I begin to seek other less strenuous and repetitive assembly line work. I wish to free myself from this robotic work I do everyday.

What is the ‘telos’ (ultimate end) of this series of ever persistent desire for freedom? Is hunger for freedom similar to hunger for food, never satiated? I don’t think so. I think the search for freedom can culminate in an ultimate and satisfying end.

Freedom, I suspect, is a search for self-determination. When we feel that we are master of our domain, when we are free to determine who we are and what we need to be our self we will have reached that ‘telos’ of freedom. I suspect this end is as unique as a finger print, it is an act of creation and can be made conscious to me only by me.

I think each of us must learn for our self what we need to secure freedom’s ‘telos’. Probably most of us find only a degree of freedom, but if we never stop looking we may continue finding more of it.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
People by their nature have much more in common with apes than the epitome of a rational human being. Our intellect is still a rather new cognitive feature and for this reason history generally depicts people as more vulgar, thoughtless and impulsive rather than reflective. Similarly to animals, when people have their territory invaded, they feel uncomfortable. As you mentioned, the metaphors of argument are literal rather than figurative. So, when people have their wisdom questioned, they display the same visceral, impetuous reaction that a monkey displays when a beast enters its territory.

In order to appreciate argument in an edifying sense, or a collection of thought experiments that are meant to educate, people need to have cognitive faculties that are much further developed than they are today. Most people would not even dream of spending their leisure time reading a challening book or solving puzzles. In fact, they have no concept of what it means to have an intellectual challenge or even less to appreciate it.

In short, they aren't interested in learning, only in affirming their prejudices. You mentioned that on this forum people tend to see arguments as verbal altercations. The explanation for this is that people of our community do so for the same reason the common-place, vulgar folk do. However, typologycentral members have a special incentive to see arguments as combative. Most of them have 'N' in their MBTI code which they equate with intelligence, so their animalistic instincts of self-preservation tell them that not only is their territory invaded, but that one of their most prized virtues also is.

Arguing is fun.
Some of us do it as a break from intellectual life. Considered that?

Most of you have no intellectual life and the quality of your 'arguments' rarely exceeds those commonly seen on Jerry Springer. Out of mere confusion and self-pity you presume yourselves to have some kind of intellectual abilities which are attested to by your 'arguments' or posts of low-brow invectives against one another that consist mostly of one-liners and chat-speak codes. (Tl'dr, LOL, ESTJ! INFJ! INTJ! ISTJ! SJ! Sensor! Insert emoticon here)
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Freedom and Ecstasy

Victor

I think each of us must learn for our self what we need to secure freedom’s ‘telos’. Probably most of us find only a degree of freedom, but if we never stop looking we may continue finding more of it.

Quite so.

Freedom is transcendence. For as you show, we transcend any condition we find ourselves in.

We know, of course, where we are but we don't know where we are going.

So the impulse to transcend the taken-for-granted is somewhat mysterious until we find that stepping outside the taken-for-granted is ecstatic.

And just as the Ancient Greeks discovered, it is ecstasy that entices us to freedom. But once tasted, we want more and more.

Like the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, once tasted, we develop a taste.

So we develop a taste for ecstasy that can only be satisfied by eating again and again as we break out of the prison of the taken-for-granted into ecstasy.

Ah, sweet ecstasy!
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Argument:

–noun
1.
an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.

2.
a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.

3.
a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.

4.
a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

5.
an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.

6.
subject matter; theme: The central argument of his paper was presented clearly.

7.
an abstract or summary of the major points in a work of prose or poetry, or of sections of such a work.


Debate:

–noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3.
deliberation; consideration.

So it looks to me like a debate is essentially an argument. An argument does not have to be a debate, though. Argument is actually a very broad word.

There's also this.

Discussion:

–noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

Oh, and how about this?

Dispute:

–noun

7.
a debate, controversy, or difference of opinion.

8.
a wrangling argument; quarrel.
 

LeafAndSky

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
307
MBTI Type
ISFP
LeafandSky

One very serious problem is that our educational system has taught us something about debate but has left us totally ignorant of dialogic.

I think that our first step is for a significant percentage of our population to become sufficiently intellectually sophisticated as to make many citizens capable of engaging in dialogical reasoning. To do this I think that many citizens must become self-actualizing self-learners when their school daze are over.

What you describe isn't for everyone, but more of it often would be of benefit to quality of life, yes.

Under our normal cultural situation communication means to discourse, to exchange opinions with one another. It seems to me that there are opinions, considered opinions, and judgments. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen. Considered opinions, however, are opinions that have received a considerable degree of thought but have not received special study. A considered opinion starts out perhaps as tacit knowledge but receives sufficient intellectual attention to have become consciously organized in some fashion. Judgments are made within a process of study.

Some people, for whatever reason, get as far as opinion and then stop.

I like to go further than opinion, but not always. Sometimes developing considered opinions and judgments is work or is too time-consuming. Topics and issues are many and complex these days; it's not possible to develop a considered opinion or judgment on everything.

There's also the possibility that taking a closer look at some subject is threatening to a person in some way.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.[/b] Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

I seldom think in term of exploring something together in order to create and learn together. Thank you for reminding me of that. I do at least think in terms of mutual sharing of experiences or insights and learning from one another.

“On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

You say that Bohm saw communication breakdown as caused by "the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring." Do you know what he saw as a cause of the "crude and insensitive manner"? Does he have a fix?

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

I don't know. There are a host of variables affecting "save the species."
 
Last edited:

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
SolitaryWalker

Our education system is designed to produce graduates who can help maximize production and consumption. There is little interest in graduating Critical Thinking independent individuals. The only way that we can get around this problem is for adults to become self-actualizing self-learners so that they can comprehend the situation that we are in and thus change it.

My goal in posting on these forums is to attempt to convince adults to get an intellectual life when their school daze are over.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
LeafandSky

The fix for our problem is for adults to become self-actualizing self-learners when their school daze are over. Oops I am repeating my self.
 
Top