On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:23, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > 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. > If your experience with arguments is that they end when someone says, "Yes, you're right. I'm convinced," then we are not arguing with the same sorts of people. The closest I ever remember coming to that is once when someone said, "I can't answer your argument, but you haven't convinced me." This astonished me at the time, just because of the astonishing level of intellectual honesty it implied (I've been the same position frequently without admitting it). > > 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. > Indeed? We resolve contradictions in the real world through our thoughts? Interesting idea. Here's a real-world contradiction: we live in a society in which the means of production are worked socially, but the results (ie, profits) are appropriated privately; and in which the economy is global, but political government is still determined by nation-states. This produces unending series of economic crises as well as wars over markets and control of resources. Kindly "resolve" that with your thoughts. Is society a bit too complex? Then lets turn to nature. When we speak of "life" we refer to a body which assimilates matter into itself and then turns that matter *into* itself. In doing so it will replace all of it's atoms with other atoms. It is, thus, at any time, itself and not-itself. It is itself and something else. That's what life IS: contradiction. Resolve that with your thoughts. If that's too tough, I'll give you one that *exists* in thought, and therefore ought to be resolvable that way: A body cannot be in two places at once, nor can it be simultaneously "here" and "not-here." Can you explain *movement* in any way that doesn't involve a exactly those two phenomena? > > 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. > This is asking far too much of facts. Matters that can be settled merely by the recitation of facts are, almost by definition, trivialities, like axioms in mathematics. And, like axioms, they rarely survive contact with the real world (anyone who believes that A actually equals A outside of the most far-removed of abstractions is invited to consider the matter as applied to any real-world phenomenon). Our opinions, attitudes, and beliefs (ie, the stuff of argument) come not merely from the facts we've met, but from all of our experience. The conflict represented in the clash of ideas reflects these differences in our history, usually expressed in our method of thought. Would you care for one more unresolvable contradiction? This argument we are having is forcing me to examine my attitudes and beliefs as part of the process of expressing my opinion in the most precise way I can. I am, in fact, learning from this argument, though I do not expect to convince you. This leaves you in the uncomfortable position of being unable to convince me of your argument except by admitting that I am right.