On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 15:36, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Steve Brust wrote: > > > More, I contend such arguments are worth having. Because through them > > something can be *settled* and *solved*? No. Because through them, > > knowledge and understanding can be developed and increased. > > If an argument isn't being had to settle and solve an issue, there's precious > little point in having one. Knowledge and understanding are hardly to be > had in the presence of continued ambiguity. I must disagree. I would submit, on the contrary, that anything which can be settled unambiguously is not worth arguing about. Thoughts do not emerge from a vacuum, but rather are a product of our interaction with the world. The world around us filled with conflicts and contradictions; the process of cognition necessarily reflects this. Informed argument can bring these contradictions to the surface, which, in general, is an excellent way to increase our understanding of the world. In particular, given that most thought takes place in language, arguments over language usage are an excellent way to sharpen our minds. And if you happen to disagree that "most thought takes place in language" then we have an excellent subject to argue about, don't we? And if you would dispute my assertion that the material reality is filled with contradictions, we have another.