The Argument

Posts : 8 ᚠ : 12 Join date : 2014-01-20

The Argument

A proper philosopher must arm himself with the ability to argue. But first you must understand the essence of the argument. Arguments are held within reason and culture. You cannot reason with an animal; you cannot reason with an emotionally triggered manimal (human animal). Thus you must treat an emotionally evoked human as-if he is an animal. Because there is no difference between this human, and a dog, or a bird, a fish, a worm, etc. At least two parties must hold their emotions (animal nature) in-check, in order to engage and hold an argument. An argument is similar to a chess match. There are social rules. These generally are agreed-upon before the dispute. There is a priori mutual understanding.

This is known as a logical premise.

Humans presume things about the world: truths, truisms, axioms, physical theories, facts, objective history, meta-narrative, etc. Premises arise from these (already presumed) beliefs. These beliefs arise from values. These values ultimately root into blood & genes. Perhaps they cannot become changed. But they will become unveiled and exposed upon the beginning of any argument (debate). Because everybody has premises :as they have values.

A premise is a value.

Values represent unchanging, natural, instinctive, genetic, biology.

If both participants of an argument set their premises and begin their debate :then a 'successful' debate will maintain a low level of emotions between the two participants. But there immediately is another factor to consider. The two must share a culture (a language). Language is the second aspect of argument. (Lack of) Emotion is the first aspect of argument. The lack of emotion is called: Reason. And reason is the primary utility of philosophy. Language creates the foundation for reason and logic. We speak the same language (English in our Anglican age, our culture, our time); but language can change and evolve over time. You can learn two or more languages. A diversity of languages leads to cultural diversification.

Because language binds some people together or excludes and sets other people apart.

The premises are the values; the values are the chess pieces.

The language is the foundation; the foundation is the chess board.

The argument is the battle.

bowstring Posts : 48 ᚠ : 48 Join date : 2014-01-22

Do you suggest your argument as to why you would not want me to rape your sister, would not contain emotion?

Posts : 8 ᚠ : 12 Join date : 2014-01-20

That type of argument would contain as much emotion, if not more than a similar argument, as to how to torture to death anybody who tried.

Death threats obviously are one of the most primal forms of "arguments" which will provoke emotions, namely, the survival instincts. Such "debates" will rarely or never avoid emotion at some level. Because organisms act out of self preservation. This also leads to the point that proper philosophers are far above mere-survival. Philosophy is the primary art of existence. Therefore it is the most prestigious action: to think. Most philosophers will not be put into positions where their own lives, or loved ones, are put into danger, as you suggest.

That is more the realm of fools, to immediately interlude suggestions of personal attacks.

It ultimately is an Ad Hominid Fallacy, an attack of the person rather than an engagement of ideas.

So you essentially propose arguing on behalf of the ad hominid fallacy (personal attack).

Any proper philosopher easily can dispatch a fallacious argument; because we have superior reason.

Subject: Re: The Argument Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:50 pm

His question is entirely valid, and not in any way an ad hominem tactic nor defending or advocating any such thing.

You started to answer the question, and then… oops. I would give you a modicum of credit, however, for even that small attempt. I'm sure you will do better next time.

But then again, your time is up, so.. thanks for playing.

bowstring Posts : 48 ᚠ : 48 Join date : 2014-01-22

Wizard wrote:: That type of argument would contain as much emotion, if not more than a similar argument, as to how to torture to death anybody who tried.

Death threats obviously are one of the most primal forms of "arguments" which will provoke emotions, namely, the survival instincts. Such "debates" will rarely or never avoid emotion at some level. Because organisms act out of self preservation. This also leads to the point that proper philosophers are far above mere-survival. Philosophy is the primary art of existence. Therefore it is the most prestigious action: to think. Most philosophers will not be put into positions where their own lives, or loved ones, are put into danger, as you suggest.

That is more the realm of fools, to immediately interlude suggestions of personal attacks.

It ultimately is an Ad Hominid Fallacy, an attack of the person rather than an engagement of ideas.

So you essentially propose arguing on behalf of the ad hominid fallacy (personal attack).

Any proper philosopher easily can dispatch a fallacious argument; because we have superior reason.

Yes it was only the first example I thought of where emotion could be the basis or at least included, perhaps heavily in argument. What other reason from your perspective would there be to prove to my why I shouldnt do such a thing besides "I really dont want you to" and/or "I REALLY DONT WANT YOU TO, Dont!!". Me responding at all was more my intrigue in the existence of emotion, and how it may be intimately attached to some point of view.

» an argument