Making Arguments

[Little_Sticks]

Lately I've been wondering about the usefulness of arguing a claim about anything to another person that may hold a view that sees my argument as offensive.

I've come across some personal reasons why I'm starting to believe arguing does more harm than it does good.

1. Often times it's just a preference for a political philosophy for a given situation that probably shouldn't be verbalized as more than an opinion that is stated as fact and becomes the source of an argument; and this makes people argue with no end and understandably so.

2. Sometimes the reasoning for an argument is based on behavioral conditioning. But what behavior works for one person, won't necessarily work as well for another. And so we fall back into political philosophy.

3. In other instances, the object of the argument might be completely misunderstood in its intentions (if that's relevant) and then people argue about what it is they think is really the argument or can't look past that to what the person was trying to say. It's as if it would have been better just not to bother. I guess this might be more of a cultural situation.

4. There's also the aspect that some view arguments as a personal challenge to be refuted and will use any rhetoric they think will get the job done. This can be a problem if the person presenting the argument is less concerned about being right or wrong and more interested in what another could teach them about how their argument or view(s) might fail or even could be corrected or improved. And one begins to wonder why they even bother?

That's the gist of what I could think of right now. There's probably more that could be added, but I'm willing to bet this will turn into number 4 instead.

I dunno...I guess you're probably going to argue with me about this too and I suppose maybe that's really the point...but these things bother me. It's something to talk about, I suppose. I don't think it has been mentioned before.

 

[Mole]

Arguing and the Dodo

C'mon, the medium is the message. It is arguing itself that is the message, not the content of the argument.

And the message of arguing is individualism, for in an argument we have two individuals with two different points of view.

Yes, an argument is visual, it had points of view, it has perspectives.

And it is literacy that gives rise to argument.

But literacy and print are giving way to the electron and the noosphere, where rather than bouncing off one another like billiard balls, we groom and caress one another.

Naturally the literate, puritan individual finds the tactile noosphere creepy and even abhorrent.

But fortunately in the noosphere we only have to reach out our hand to touch one another across vast distances, time zones and psyches.

The literate individual is joining the dodo, along with arguing.

 

[Little_Sticks]

You know what's weird Victor? Out of all the posters on this site, you strike me as the most kindred to my own thoughts. I don't disagree with you at all.

See I think that's the problem though because what use is arguing if I already see through most of the philosophical bullshit people try to claim as universal and for other people? I think that's always what made me uncomfortable and question the reasoning of other people; and in doing so, I know my options and I know how I react and deal with anything is a choice because I can deduce my conscious will down to a choice when I need to. The value of anything and the value of my relationships with other people are always a choice in any moment and I can redefine them any way I want, especially when involving pain and fear. And I don't have to agree with anyone and can even feel a personal apathy (and dis-personal anti-apathy) towards the force of others, knowing it's not truly about being wrong or right, but about learning to maximize and appreciate my will to be free.

And because of this I always approached arguing with the idea that I will learn all the ways a situation can be interpreted and dealt with...that I can learn what all my options really are in my life. At first I believed there were potentially absolutes regarding ways to treat other people and be treated and how best to act and live a life. But now I know there isn't any and the value of arguing to assert such seems silly, unless I've simply decided that a belief is worth fighting for no matter what condition my life may be in...I suppose that's more of a test of what would constitute an ultimate belief though.

You strike me as the same, except that you're more concerned with trying to get other people to understand what they don't already know or understand - is that your ultimate belief?

I sort of hope this doesn't sound pretentious, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone interprets it that way. It seems just asserting that one exists can be seen as pretentious to some.

 

[Vizzy]

When I argue (I prefer to use the word 'discuss') with workmates and friends about a topic like religion, I make a bit of a verbal contract with them: "No one takes it personally or makes it personal, OK?"

 

[Giggly]

I agree. The only time its worth arguing is if the other person really wants to understand an alternate viewpoint (which is not the same as agreeing) and can go about that respectfully.