Yes, I am also Kovacs.
Sure.
Perhaps my post has these as implication, but if so you are steps ahead of me, since I would not have said either of those things. I thought I made it pretty clear.
I was focused on this question, which I think I have seen you ask before and also frame more as a premise in other contexts. Does this eliminate the argument? Does this argument or position you have make everyone agree?
I think that is a strange implicit critique. People agreeing, in my experience, is not controlled by the validity, soundness, truth values, rhetorical ability, truth value (as far as I judge this). In fact an argument that eliminated argument might be incorrect - an idea I tried to get across by raising issues of power in my previous post.
Makes it go away. I think that is a very odd formulation. I have no idea if this is the case, but it sounds like your political hopes are being brought into a philosophical discussion. There is some kind of conflation: political or interpersonal effectiveness is being conflated with truth value.
If I say this, you will then, it seems, ask how do you know what you are saying is correct. Fine. That can lead to a good discussion. But asking for arguments that will make debates go away seems confused to me.
Let me know if you can see the two different discussions: in one objectivist A argues why X is moral. In the other discussion objectivist A argues that his or her position will eliminate argument.
To me these are completely different categories of discussion, the latter with some kind of incredilble utopian hopes and criteria for arguments.
The guys over at KTS know full well that their arguments are not going eliminate all disagreement. In fact they seem more dead certain than most people on the issue and I agree with them. I would see this idea that one’s argument will eliminate all other positions is more a liberal position, a faith in the potency of rationality and argument.
I am pretty sure this is not simply poor phrasing on your part, since you challenge other people’s arguments by presenting other people’s arguments that have not been made to go away.
Rather than simply contesting their argument with YOURS.
So it seems like a real criterion for you: what you just said does not eliminate debate (so therefore it is not objective, sound, true, useful seems implicit also). STrange.
I think you are adding a problem. There is the problem of coming to an objective or right answer. Then there is the goal of having this answer be compelling to eveyone. Hence you participate in discussions and frame them at an abstracted, distant from yourself level. Your feet are not on the ground.
This is important stuff - the issue of people not being convinced. I am not saying that is not important, but it is a different discussion.
As long as you do not come at life from your own position and have this criterion of ‘convince everyone or your position is not useful’ you are outside yourself and ntohing can be resolved. For you anyway.
It comes off like you think the only possible use of a discussion is universal (secular) salvation.