On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Steve Brust wrote: > 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. Not once it's settled unambiguously, to be sure. The whole idea is that it is NOT settled before the argument, and settled after. Even if the thing settled is not necessarily what the participants thought to settle going in. All too often, what gets settled is 'is this person someone I want to discuss this matter with any further?' But that's settling something, which (as I said) is the point of arguing. > 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. I do not see how this statement is at all in conflict with my own previous assertions -- rather, it is in perfect consonance. It is by argument that we resolve the contradictions, that is, settle matters, through our increased understanding. > In particular, given that most thought takes place in language, > arguments over language usage are an excellent way to sharpen our minds. Precisely so -- discussion allows facts to emerge, and one either fortifies one's own, correct position, or discovers that it is not correct and changes positions. In either case, the discussion allows for greater understanding and eventually settles the topic. > 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. Not in the least, I assure you. It does appear, however, that we are entering the same room through different doors. pe