Do people value consent in argument?

Are you asking if people think that it’s ok to just overlook bad premises and give an argument credit simply because the conclusion is deducible from the premises?

Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "
I like that quote.

I am not sure what you mean by “granting a premise”. If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,
I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth.

Is there a way of disagreeing with the other’s argument in discussion? Sure, focus on the argument and in finding the truth ~ value that ~ instead of ripping the person apart to win points.

Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

You may not have been looking for this kind of an answer but …

I don’t think your negative and irrelevant comments have to do with envy. None of us can envy what we don’t know exists, and you don’t know what philosophy is. Your dismal emotional desert doesn’t improve by the means of talking on this forum. Nothing will or could change it.

If you understand this in the same way I do, I support this view vigorously. Though, its implication is not entirely thought through and something is still dangerous behind the warm jungle grass.

I don’t mean that. I mean that there is only an “argument” when a premise has been granted. That is the condition under which Socratic discussion is possible. Otherwise we speak to ourselves.

An insult has nothing to do with an argument; insults aren’t arguments at all. Ergo, the obstruction of the ordinary phrase “ad hominem argument” (a square circle) when applied to calling someone a moron.

I was, indeed, searching for the far-off much-needed fertility of the underworld from which this poppy springs and tilts its head towards the light of the sun, the human essence, namely reason. And so, away from the gods and Fate.

I don’t sympathies with your notion of an individual, except that it means most people are bad in any pursuit, and very few are good at it. By lack of teaching or lack of inborn talent or both. The emphasis on the individual is still not received so well because among those with reason, each one has it. Of course, there is personality, as in Goethe, but it is a subject of irregular nuanced contour.

Still, it remains so, that not one here will speak with me as the Platonic Socrates showed to be possible.

Guide wrote:

How do you understand it? I take it to mean that we are not automatically to look at something and believe it to be true for whatever purpose that suits us. We are to contemplate it, look at the thought from all angles, all sides, upside down and right- side up and then to take another look. We are to be like skeptics and agnostics - to question and doubt.

What is it that is dangerous behind the warm jungle grass? What cannot be seen nor wanted to be looked at? Explain it to me please.

By granted, do you mean to say when it can be seen that the argument has validity and logic to it?
Or is “permission” needed before one can speak? Nah, that might be too far-fetched.

I cannot recall saying that insults themselves are arguments. I do not view things in that way. Unfortunately though often they are used to gain domination over another and to try to win arguments or points. But they only get in the way.

I may not be understanding your meaning here. Are you saying that using that phrase itself, AHA, is itself an impediment to an argument when someone is referred to as a moron?

I wonder? Do you feel that an insult ought to be ignored and the discussion simply continued as though it was not there at all? That would be one way to handle the situation. It takes power away from the one who insults - unless that just adds more fuel. I am actually asking a question here. I am asking for your perspective. lol

That is nice, poetically beautiful. It kind of reminded me of Jackson Pollock’s works and why I find meaning and mystery in them. Something hidden.

I can be a little dense at times - not stupid - but dense. Can you explain what you mean by the above a bit more.
Did you just mean more in-depth discussion - in other words - using our intelligence and consciousness to shed much more light on a subject?

I was not actually getting that in depth into that word except to mean those who are aware that they are not a part of - let us say - the Borg Collective, are able to think and act for themselves, and do not adopt others’ beliefs and perspectives, because the rest of the world does. We do, after all, have our own minds and ways of thinking. It is not such an easy thing to think out of the box but it is a process.

I am not even sure if that is true. Do we all have the “capacity” for reason and to reason? How often do we actually draw on that, call it to mind, and then work with it?

Meaning what?

Are you speaking of the below:

The Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presupposition

The name Thrasymachus may refer to war (mache), and his famous blush may be, as is sometimes said, a flush of glowing rage swimming over his face. What I had in mind is not the scrutiny of a Socrates, but rather that the ad hominem (to the human being himself) of the friends and enemies of Socrates, their form (morphe, German: sorge, sorrow, werden, will) or soul (psuke), is not the same as their intellect (episteme). Thrasymachus baldly and perfectly understands the Socratic definition of Justice (Dike), but he has another definition in his soul. We would speak here of sincerity, but that is not the issue. Only Sophists slip away from the ad hominem (and, at length, pass of their own souls as a offence against logic), and Thrasymachus is not a sophist. When he thumbs through the minute stirrings of his heart, finding everything in its depths, he says: Justice is the advantage of the stronger.

We have an intelligible statement, justice is what improves the human being, but the soul is not moved to be in its region. To experience this way. The secret man, the divine heart of radical character, is neither the intelligence nor the animal man.

This goes also in clearer things, one understands: assertion: there is a Pegasus, one is not moved to grant the premise.

Here we have a matrix of black difficulties in our reach, one has never before seen such a black.

This is what is said above. In a few dialogues Socrates says, now, say what you “really think”, if he speaks to a sophist, they will say, no Socrates, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Look to the “argument”. The birth of formal-logical sterility = symbolic logic = math as mere rules. A flight from human being into the legibility of a logos that is itself literate and reads itself amidst illiterate humans. The hideous thing, technological essence.

In a political debate, nicht? Not in dialogic (philisophic) practise. Or, Medieval recherche collective de la vérité (the proper, and only useful, place for the full résumé of “logical” fallacies).

Because the word has at least four distinct meanings. The first is simply a caution against rudeness, as in the rules in the US Senate designed to maintain comity and likewise consideration for other in colleges and so on. The second is a distortion of a “genetic fallacy”, misunderstood and conflated with the first. This is the most usal why the obstruction to philosophy happens in vulgar, almost all, atrocious discussions.

This is a pre-philosophical issue. When we have domesticated, intelligent persons (though, perhaps in no way gentle or kind), only then can we do philosophy. One should remember Socrates almost always spoke to professional speakers and young nobles, and never as the ubiquitous hideous phonies have it, with people in the ”market place” (ironically, these fakes, are mislead by Socrates himself in the Apology, or, more likely what they read about that on the older equivalents of Wiki, such as classrooms with mediocre professors [true, there is some argument against this, rather distant, however, from the general throng and its philistine doings]).

The civilization bloc of the philosophers is not inclusive of everyone, only the scrutinizing life, says Socrates, is human.

It is mentioned above. As to the gods and fate, this means that reason is focused not on entities, a chimera, and huge beast or titan, but on being. Being is in each being, yet, it is difficult, at first to say anything but what draws away from it, for example, that beings are actual or potential. And then to some detail. Such as whether when the Dodo is extinct, is the Dodo in its power to be, in being, are Dodo’s still a possibility as a now being actual potential. On the other hand, we have reason humming about us as something over and against authority, and there the bee or drone of reason tends to dissolve into logistics.

It’s the reverse. Only in seeing one is part of each one, the same as each, can speak to each one from one’s solitude, does one first become individual amidst the extreme loneliness of the each one and each friend who understands just and only so much of the bowles of one’s being which is as each other. Otherwise one plays at individuality in the same way each other does. And that is a kind of collective game, like being part of a dissident social movment.

There are a few types of thinking, and though some peculiarity comes in, it is very little. There are types more than irregular traits of fate or character. Most of all, what is “individual”, is what wholly lacks fate or character, namely reason. Only if, in reason, there is discovered the abyss, is there Kantian Reich of causes. The rest is posing and romanticism of the enjoyment of the variety of beings = the “cultures”, most of all, the culture of one. One must then with clarity see: culture is the concept of one modern culture, as though a bolt from the blue for the globe, the Northern European West of the late (post-Hegelian) Enlightenment.

that being said, I agree, if you mean each one has their own character (personality), ergo, their own peculiar fate. Except, perhaps, the great ones who epitomize all things, all works and peoples relativizing them and thrusting them under their ideas as they cast shadows. Husserl says here: the idea is stronger than any empirical force.

It’s analogous in a large way to the degeneration of our sense of culture. A cultured person once meant someone more perfectly human, more civilized. But now there is no such thing as a person without culture. Same extermination of thought and being has occurred with the conception of personality in Goethe.

Something to do with what is said above (especially in response one on Thrasymachus and with respect to the premise drawn from the soul or ad hominem in the proper sense).

I don’t think it’s such a bad exercise to explore the validity of a set of propositions, regardless of how sound the premises are.

If anything, I would more than recommend it to everyone, seeing as nowadays all anyone wants to do is further their preferred premises regardless of the validity of any development of them, nevermind to their initial soundness.

However, to a guy who insists on speaking in poetic metaphor and verbose riddles such as Guide, confirming the specifics of the premises in the first place is going to be far too much of an effort in and of itself - however valuable he may proclaim such a task to be to undertake. To deserve consent in an argument, one must first earn it by doing one’s intended interlocutors the courtesy of clarity and communicability. Else you only show yourself to be out to peacock a self-proclaimed yet obfuscated authority - a kind of sparring by running: dancing for its own sake. And dancing is fine, but it is best expressed as itself and not as what it is not. What I have just written is as pretentious as anyone could ever need to get on this forum, let it be your guide.

That is agreeable and sensible , except that both , the premise and the conclusion must be compatible , and no amount of illogical skirting around it , should be a confirmation of applicability , as by the use of rhetorical gyrations, although, such have become in vogue, since at least the last five decades of the twentieth century. The use of very carefully crafted clarity, at times will mask the logical weaknesses inherent within , on account with the demolition of reductive logic .

It is possible to really equovocate a thesis into its obvious contradiction nowadays, by simply changing current usage to conform to desired meanings, and that has been going on since the black letter has been abandoned in many cases to mirror expectations rather then what a confirmation really should have been.

It is very hard and at times almost impossible to argue for what is good , right right and just.

Positivism has gone too far, and it has turned into rather an apologia for lack of proper foundation.

The problem is with the polarization of beliefs structurally suited to apply to a universal line connecting intent with objective. It has been misplaced bybprobable outcome.

Place ones’self into the shoes of the man who is surmised to have been in such and such of situation, frame of mind, and reliance, and try going from there. Good intentions may be lost to a dubious outcome, nevertheless, and judgement strays from the affect into the effected newly formed situation, the existential morass from which there is no appearing escape.

The object captures the subject, intentionality aside. Common sense has no longer any spatial temporal dimension to the degree that is has once had, and that is the fuel over the fire of a prejudicial life, by far deterministic than not. Get someone to argue a child’s innocence out of an time scape, and that innocence will not be described as robbed, and if such mentality was reversed at the time of the abolition of child labor, progressives would have never the chance.

Sorry, double.As I read what I have written, an idea has occured, that the foundation, rather the lack of it, is pesupposing a judgement over the last decades, without the necessary predisposition to appreciate the innate objective wellness that humanity would need as a sine quo non. Sure, the progressives’ have gone far in meritorious achievements, but guidelines have not controlled over the top interpretations, colluded the difference with disposing the worth while with that which should be tossed.

Granted:
-used to admit that something is true, before saying something else about it:
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio … sh/granted

In the art of speaking within philosophy, ‘granting a premise’ [as above] is not a fundamental and critical element.

The following are the critical and fundamental elements within a philosophical discussion,

  1. The patience to determine the ‘Problem Statement,’ question and premise to be accepted [not agreed] for the discussion.
    If this is not done, then both parties will be arguing pass each other and time is wasted.

  2. Adopting the Principle of Charity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

  3. The arguments presented need to be logical and rational

Any ‘granting the premise’ [as defined] would only be a condition and qualification to the argument.

Even though I’m not completely sure what you’re saying, this kind of hurt my feelings a little bit.

It is obvious that inferences of the kind can be made where there is a fair belief of certainty that the narrative goes unnoticed by the one who is seen responsible for lapses of judgement within the narrative. Such oversight neither serves the adjudicator nor the purpose for which such lapses can account for.
There are stylistic formal indistinctions, that cover the reversal of non parity, of the substantial kind, whose forfeiture is much more serious.

That is, a central point that balance around which the meaning structure of that narrative can be unbalanced.
Lack of balance negates the inquiry about consent of their values within any argument.
Its a tricky thing to peg down approximate yet paradigm characteristic types of responses, as far as creating model agreements or disagreements with a proposal, as to characterize a definite type, because responses vary over time, and some are counter tests measuring intentional or non casual inducements.
I am sure at this stage , none could generally be characterized with a rote, propositional description as instigated by primal jealousy.

A better description may be competitive acceptance on basis of some measure of qualification and acceptance on somewhat along its own terms.

“Are we, these days, capable to see the most great worthiness of the art of speaking that operates by granting a premise? And then arguing with what is granted by the human being in discussion.”

This is an epitomized, out of the general opinion, “no” synonymous with: my dad told me this is the way and what you say is not what he said. I can’t think for I must rush to the answer book and don’t really understand in any serious sense what he says (or what you write), though I can give a prospectus of dad’s notions in mere words, so could a machine or a written poster, even though the poster understands nothing; and I myself even less, since I even actively “understand” something else in the place of dad’s concept, thus obstructing myself and driving it even deeper from the warm rays of thought into the intense chillness of winter ground and total hibernation under a desk in the academy at the time of a boring lecture while I fiddle with my braids. As to your wrongheaded ideas, that are unlike what my dad says, I don’t even read them after the first line assaults my eyes; never have I seen such wrongness.

Yeah we all just parrot what we learned by rote. But you’re special - you go, you!

It took you 172 words to say “you learned by rote”. 2% efficiency isn’t worth your time, never mind ours. I even agreed with the value behind your thread title’s suggestion, idiot.

In most of your OPs I had missed what is your intended question or issue.

The ‘wrongness’ and problem is you are a very bad communicator, not me since I could understand most of the other OP and responded correctly.
There is no need to be arrogant when others failed to answer to your expectations. Are you trying to score cheap points to feed your ego?
The correction to such is you should make your OPs more simpler and clearer so that more people understand your intention.

Note this recent OP of yours;

What is the European Science?
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194651

MagsJ: Does changing the label change the meaning? i.e. fact/truth…

Attano: I am not certain about what the OP actually means, yet I suppose that Guide is implying something different, which is indeed related to meaning.

Most of the time, people are guessing what your OPs actually mean.

I suggest you state clearly your intended thesis, issue or question in your OP.

Only through learning philosophic scrutinizing, and so, proper or scientific (not in the sense now in power) dialogic exchange, will they set aside this concern. However, the only way to learn is through participating in genuine philosophical exchange. So, you have to put academic standards away. They are made for the university, which is a servant of technology, and so, in the most extreme sense, not for philosophy.

My question was so that I could clarify my own position, to better respond from… I quite like the nature of Guide’s initial position in his OPs, as it takes the mind to many places in order to understand and respond from… parallel thoughts/thinking, if you will, but it seems that it’s just me who likes that. :blush:

I live my life by that quote… I use it all the time. Id like to believe I value truth over hurting my “opponent” but I have made mistakes in the past as well in which I try to win instead of reach truth. I’d much rather lose if one is to or even I learn from my losing.

To debate clearly I feel all ideas/conclusions should be stowed unless arrived at independently. Is this what you are saying? How people are so easily and potently indoctrinated by ideology without realizing? That the only source of discussion should be from the self and nothing external?