Which is better - a long answer or a short one?
I think a short and simple one is better. Understandability of an argument without too much hassle is always good for me!
Perhaps this ties into the ‘economic man’ theory, which says that i need to spend more time working, less time thinking…
What do you think?
Trivial mutch ?
Well I could go on and explain further, but that would take time, thus defeating the purpose of my initial argument, that simple is better.
brevity is the soul of wit
-Imp
Well what is the best colour ?
It’s pure opinion, there is no best in either of the options, there is only a best to save time and best spend time. The best will change depending on what each person wants but your question is far from that specific.
Short or long, one that makes sense is preffered over either, if it’s going to wrong either way short is obviously preffered to save time wasted, for those who look for efficiency they will want it as short as required to make sense and those that want to spend time will want it long.
I’m stating the obvious here, asking what is the equivalent in triviality of “which people like red, blue and black ?” (answer being that people that like blue, like blue, people that like red, like red etc) on a philosophy forum, try harder.
I think Aquinas once said that a sign of wisdom is to be able to say much in few words. But on a web forum (or a paper) it is best to include each step in your argument, grounding each step as well as possible.
This I find hard to do, as I’m never sure which arguments are clear until I’ve been taken to task for them.
mrn
Occam’s Razor anyone?
I don’t like short answers, because they’re not clear. They’re vague. They’re also more liable to sneak in ignorance. I like to know the full truth. The more in alignment with the truth you are, the better, no? Of course it might depend on the question…your question is too short. 
I’m sure there are some questions that just don’t require a long answer.
I like simplicity but at the same time I understand that some subjects are anything but simple and require detail.
You shouldn’t have anything in there that you don’t need for your argument to be clear.
However, to say that is to say nothing at all… essentially i think the question boils down to “how much do i need to say to be clear”.
That is entirely dependent on situation. You don’t, for instance, need to demonstrate modus ponens every time you use it, but if your argument is a little fuzzy or contraversial you need to back it up.
There is no clear cut formula or algorithm for what is “perfect” or not.
on the other hand, if you leave out something htat’s obvious to you, somebody won’t find it obvious, and will pick on it, and cause a thread of argument that will never end. if you wanted to avoid that you’d have to write a book. i guess an argument can never be complete enough.
Good philosophy goes against common sense, but not against good sense.
I think a properly philosophical argument has to be immediately understood in its properly political context as a procedure aiming towards a truth…
…so I guess however long it takes to get the point across! It all depends on how committed you are to your standpoint, and how must resistance you’re encountering.
Very true inhahe - I have erred on both sides on several occasions - sometimes I get criticised for assuming something apparently contraversial, sometimes for explaining something apparently obvious. People are never satisfied.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” -A.E.
In other words, you’ve got to find that fine line between complexity and incompleteness. Whatever your theory, it should at least be complete and consistent, but it should not be mutliplied beyond necessity.
An ideal philosophical answer addresses the subject in the simplest shortest form possible. Length does not provide substance.