Do people value consent in argument?

[Guide]

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

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?

[Arcturus Descending]

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.

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.

Do people value consent in argument?

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 ....

[Guide]

"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?"

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.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
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.


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.

Do people value consent in argument?

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 ....

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

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.

"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 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.

[Arcturus Descending]

Guide wrote:

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

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.

"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."

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.

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.

An insult has nothing to do with an argument; insults aren't arguments at all.

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.

Ergo, the obstruction of the ordinary phrase "ad hominem argument" (a square circle) when applied to calling someone a moron.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

Of course, there is personality, as in Goethe, but it is a subject of irregular nuanced contour.

Meaning what?

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

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

[Guide]

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


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.

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.

“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.
“

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.

An insult has nothing to do with an argument; insults aren't arguments at all.


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.

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).

“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?”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

Of course, there is personality, as in Goethe, but it is a subject of irregular nuanced contour.


Meaning what?

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.

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


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

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).

[Silhouette]

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?

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[Meno_]

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 an apologia for lack of proper foundation.

The problem is with the polarization of beliefs as structurally suited to apply to a universal line, connecting intent with objective, is that It has been misplaced by probable 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 appealing 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 more deterministic than not. Get someone to argue a child's innocence out of a certain time scape, and that innocence will not be described as robbed. If such mentality was reversed at the time of the abolition of child labor, progressives would have never the chance.

[Meno_]

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

Granted:
-used to admit that something is true, before saying something else about it:
https://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. https://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.

[Mr Reasonable]

"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?"

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.

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

[Meno_]

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.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
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.


Granted:
-used to admit that something is true, before saying something else about it:
https://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. https://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.

"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.

[Silhouette]

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.

[Prismatic567]

Guide wrote:
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.


Granted:
-used to admit that something is true, before saying something else about it:
https://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. https://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.

"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.

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.

[Guide]

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

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.

[MagsJ]

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.

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.

[Artimas]

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.

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.

Do people value consent in argument?

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 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.

[Artimas]

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

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.

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?

[Guide]

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.

This is not what I understood the topic to be. What I mean is that the premise is, MUST BE, supplied ad hominem. So that one can speak to the human being as exists in the granted premise. Old Socratic dialogic. The way now in power is sheer sophistry. The pretense that there is an "argument" independent of human beings and thus the tacit exclusion of "value", to use the current term (a strange dogmatic vert-frei deliberation, deliberation as mere techne or instrument of nothing). Our sophistry is based on the presupposition that value is not scientific, therefore the human must be excluded from the discussion. The very act of discussion implies the value or altitude as what gives light, the nobility, of discussion as scrutiny into being. If human beings find satisfaction, importance, in discussion, discussion itself is "subjective", unscientific, by the current state monopoly on metaphysics. The whole procedure is idiotic. The radical and naked exclusion of philosophy from academic "philosophy". What is the cause: large scale education, ergo, sheer depredation in the service of technology.

Dialogic is not sham-democratic "debate". Even that much is impossible to communicate to the idiot mind formed of state manipulation. I have zero interest in debate. This is a forced perversion of the current state tyranny that depreciates the human being so radically only "subjective" debate makes sense to the populations. The real sense of collective research is banished.

[Artimas]

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.

This is not what I understood the topic to be. What I mean is that the premise is, MUST BE, supplied ad hominem. So that one can speak to the human being as exists in the granted premise. Old Socratic dialogic. The way now in power is sheer sophistry. The pretense that there is an "argument" independent of human beings and thus the tacit exclusion of "value", to use the current term (a strange dogmatic vert-frei deliberation, deliberation as mere techne or instrument of nothing). Our sophistry is based on the presupposition that value is not scientific, therefore the human must be excluded from the discussion. The very act of discussion implies the value or altitude as what gives light, the nobility, of discussion as scrutiny into being. If human beings find satisfaction, importance, in discussion, discussion itself is "subjective", unscientific, by the current state monopoly on metaphysics. The whole procedure is idiotic. The radical and naked exclusion of philosophy from academic "philosophy". What is the cause: large scale education, ergo, sheer depredation in the service of technology.

Dialogic is not sham-democratic "debate". Even that much is impossible to communicate to the idiot mind formed of state manipulation. I have zero interest in debate. This is a forced perversion of the current state tyranny that depreciates the human being so radically only "subjective" debate makes sense to the populations. The real sense of collective research is banished.

My idea of ad hominem is when one begins to insult the other individual instead of focus on the conversation. I do not blame them for they do not understand most often. They focus on the attempt of making the others character look weak, deterrent of the topic, a fallacy.

I agree with the idea of socratic dialogic, I just don't use the same terminology due to independent thought/perception, I haven't adopted the terminology yet because I have focused more on self thinking rather than reading books, seeking inconsistencies in argument, character, ideals. It's common sense but common sense is not too common these days for the general public, which I am apart of still of course by force of will and misconceptions of society on average, just not in the form of thinking.

In simpler terms, science has become a method of indoctrination through an authoritative stance. A type of method in which one only learns to think in sense of literal only and not be open minded to metaphorical and interpretation. The value of repeating old knowledge is the unique new person, the diversity in perception and unique thinking, who repeats it, for new ideas may come and be added on.

Your choice of words to the simple man would appear insulting using "idiot mind", I feel one should attempt at associating context of the other individual into the factor to make it as easy to understand as possible. An unbiaseness in speaking, neutrality. Criticism is grand but the other must learn to accept such as well.

[Guide]

You’re being seduced to place warm emotions and consideration for others above the scrutiny of the investigation! The ability to call an idiot an idiot is of infinite value to intelligent discussion. We could skirt the issue by using less blunt words, but then we lose clarity in the mercury of the nuances which would amount to putting velvet gloves on the tiger of truth.

“Your choice of words to the simple man would appear insulting using "idiot mind"”

Because of a presupposition: everything is “individual” under the wholly unthought out, taken for granted: conception of “subjectivity”, or the commonplace existentialism. Each one has the right to interpret existence in their own way. This leads to a dreamlike impotence of all discussion, and sheer power controls everything. Since in institutions the correct and incorrect are laid down by main force. All conversation then drifts from what is serious, the views to be taken by institutions and the state. By education and the courts. As soon as we admit that some answers or statements are right (correct), and some wrong, with respect to anything at all, then we see that it is crazy not to regard some people as idiots. And not to be squeamish about saying it. An idiot thinks they are right, when they are wrong. The whole issue is in the very trite reality that people are often wrong about quite a number of trivial things while claiming to be right. Idiots. It is right to point out idiocy, a clear state of affairs one often encounters.

“My idea of ad hominem is when one begins to insult the other individual instead of focus on the conversation. I do not blame them for they do not understand most often. They focus on the attempt of making the others character look weak, deterrent of the topic, a fallacy.”

Thesis: There’s no “conversation”. Only “individuals”. Why? : You say it: “The value of repeating old knowledge is the unique new person, the diversity in perception and unique thinking, who repeats it, for new ideas may come and be added on.”

The “conversation” (or, at length, the “argument”) is nothing else but the way noises are understood by the ones there. There is no "argument" living by itself to take up defense of itself.

Problem: One confuses this, your statement, with this: Enjoyment of variety for its own sake without consideration of whether the thing makes sense or not. Insight is rare, idiosyncratically worthless opinions are commonplace and bequeathed to this forum constantly.

[Artimas]

You’re being seduced to place warm emotions and consideration for others above the scrutiny of the investigation! The ability to call an idiot an idiot is of infinite value to intelligent discussion. We could skirt the issue by using less blunt words, but then we lose clarity in the mercury of the nuances which would amount to putting velvet gloves on the tiger of truth.

You must first peak the ignorant mans curiosity, before disciplining him about it. This is where we sometimes miss the psychological point. Some are not reachable through discussion at all due to their ego completely disregarding the subconscious, an only literal type of thinking, an entrapment of huge magnitude by their own psyche and only through their last moments before ceasing do they realize or understand, in the flashing of their life before their eyes.

Because of a presupposition: everything is “individual” under the wholly unthought out, taken for granted: conception of “subjectivity”, or the commonplace existentialism. Each one has the right to interpret existence in their own way. This leads to a dreamlike impotence of all discussion, and sheer power controls everything. Since in institutions the correct and incorrect are laid down by main force. All conversation then drifts from what is serious, the views to be taken by institutions and the state. By education and the courts. As soon as we admit that some answers or statements are right (correct), and some wrong, with respect to anything at all, then we see that it is crazy not to regard some people as idiots. And not to be squeamish about saying it. An idiot thinks they are right, when they are wrong. The whole issue is in the very trite reality that people are often wrong about quite a number of trivial things while claiming to be right. Idiots. It is right to point out idiocy, a clear state of affairs one often encounters.

I agree that political correctness is trash but you must understand and I know you do that they do not understand and they cannot be fully blamed for that due to their being indoctrinated, a lot of times through childhood and when they are still gullible, they disregard the subconscious, the intuition or what they deem "magic", the natural power of the psyche and seeking/understanding of wisdom. I believe they should be tested, but you must be humble in doing such due to the primal instincts embedded in us all, especially more so when one is thinking in literal sense or only one type of specific context. We must understand that they do not understand and the why, who, what, when, how of this.

Thesis: There’s no “conversation”. Only “individuals”. Why? : You say it: “The value of repeating old knowledge is the unique new person, the diversity in perception and unique thinking, who repeats it, for new ideas may come and be added on.”

The “conversation” (or, at length, the “argument”) is nothing else but the way noises are understood by the ones there. There is no "argument" living by itself to take up defense of itself.

Problem: One confuses this, your statement, with this: Enjoyment of variety for its own sake without consideration of whether the thing makes sense or not. Insight is rare, idiosyncratically worthless opinions are commonplace and bequeathed to this forum constantly.

I agree that the "offense" is created by the individual perception of lacking understanding of diverse context/thought and insecurity but since you understand this and I understand this we have the power and responsibility in trying to create curiosity in them to seek independent education. Since we understand a lot of individuals are blinded by smoke and mirrors that the ego manifests as truth, we also know the proper way in reaching them to try and offer help, the issue is when we waste too much time trying to reach them to come past their egotistical manner of thought. That is when one may choose to turn and leave or if they care about that person and have hope for them they keep trying to use different contexts, analogies, etc, to discover the way they think outside of a "literal" only sense and to try and create some sort of relation between idea which may link two individuals (agreement).

Overall I do agree with you about some or most individuals being this way objectively, I am just stating what I personally deem the best method for trying to get an individual trapped by ego to think. If they resort to fallacy in debate then you can see you have won due to their anger, insecurity about that idea due to it being an unknown truth one's subconscious may understand. This is a sign of making progress, the first step. The second step is setting them on the path of proving you wrong or an embedded competition/curiosity, the archetype of the "rebel" in a sense.