Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:49 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:36 am I understand it this way: when done skillfully it’s actually the best way to debate philosophy

Should a philosophical discussion be a debate? Certainly the purpose of philosophy cannot be to win debates and convince others (unless you think it's some kind of evangelism). The discussion of philosophy, if it is to be of any real value to anyone, ought to be a simple exchange of ideas, well explained, so that all participants can judge what is discussed and learn or reject what is available.

There is nothing wrong with a little irony and humor and gentle teasing in such a discussion to keep it interesting. But winning debates? I don't think so. (Whose the judge, anyway?)

I completely agree. And btw, I should have used “discussion” or “discourse” instead of “debate”.

Hey, Mannie...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:08 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:29 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:58 pm

Do this: define freedom.

Be simple and direct and unambiguous.

Nothing to show where I move the goalposts. Ok.

Thanks for retracting your lie. Oh wait -----

Do you not have a dictionary?

free·dom
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Regards
DL

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:51 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:36 am I understand it this way: when done skillfully it’s actually the best way to debate philosophy—you can learn much more from a winning opposing argument than you can learn from your own winning argument. And your losing argument forces you to be open to opposing arguments.

I agree.

Yet there are arguments you should lose, and those you shouldn't. You shouldn't lose arguments to people who don't have good reasons.

And you shouldn't lose arguments too easily. Because a person who can easily be dislodged from his own viewpoint probably never had a viewpoint worth having in the first place, right?

So yeah, you should be prepared to lose; but it should take nothing less that a powerfully-reasoned argument to achieve it.

Yes, well said.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:45 pm Hey, Mannie...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:08 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:29 pm
free·dom
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Ah, there the little bugger is! I wondered...

Thanks, Henry.

Well, GIA.

Is it then your position that people have more chance to "act, speak or think as they want, without hindrance or restraint" in the state of nature, or in a civilization?

It seems to me you think the answer is, "In the state of nature."

But that's pretty easy to show incorrect.

In the so-called "state of nature," everything you do is laid on by necessity. Survival takes every bit of physical effort and every moment of time you've got, and keeping from dying takes all your thinking. Your present "self" is completely preoccupied with the task of keeping your future "self" alive, so your future "self" rules every moment, and your present "self" has no option but to go along...or die.

Try it yourself. Go out in, say, the wilds of Minnesota in the winter, and decide to live for the moment only...act, speak, and think as you want to, without a second thought for what's going to happen next...

You'll be dead in an hour.

So, in the state of nature, you have squat in terms of real "freedom," as you define it.

What this shows is that civilization, far from being an inhibitor of freedom, is the basic thing that makes having any real measure of freedom possible.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:22 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:50 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:36 pm I debate to lose more than win. Can you dither out why?

Because you only bet on a sure thing.

Many do not see what I put as a sure thing.

Consider what you gain when you win a debate. Nothing but an ego boost. Right?

Consider when you lose a debate. You learn something new.

Which is better for your overall ego, to give it a boost or to have it grow?

Regards
DL

Yes.

Please note: by this definition...

free·dom
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

....GIA has been refuted by all of us, and by himself, multiple times.

Read the thread with his definition in mind and you'll see for yourself.

He sez he debates/argues to lose: he's been quite successful.

Losers always think they win.

But never show where or how.

Regards
DL

Please note: by this definition...
free·dom
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

....GIA has been refuted by all of us, and by himself, multiple times.

Read the thread with his definition in mind and you'll see for yourself.

He sez he debates/argues to lose: he's been quite successful.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:27 pm ....GIA has been refuted by all of us, and by himself, multiple times.
He sez he debates/argues to lose: he's been quite successful.

Agreed. I don't see any evidence from GIA that...

a) men "like to kill men" but women don't "like to kill."

b) that "freedom," by GIA's own definition, is enhanced in any "state of nature," if such a thing had ever existed.

Of course, this idealized "state of nature" hasn't ever existed at all. There has never been a time when one human being lived alone, and simply did not have a "society" of any kind, even a family or a spouse, and so was "free" to do whatever he/she wanted.

But GIA seems bent on making some kind of argument here...

Darned if I can even tell what it is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:00 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:27 pm ....GIA has been refuted by all of us, and by himself, multiple times.
He sez he debates/argues to lose: he's been quite successful.

Agreed. I don't see any evidence from GIA that...

a) men "like to kill men" but women don't "like to kill."

b) that "freedom," by GIA's own definition, is enhanced in any "state of nature," if such a thing had ever existed.

Of course, this idealized "state of nature" hasn't ever existed at all. There has never been a time when one human being lived alone, and simply did not have a "society" of any kind, even a family or a spouse, and so was "free" to do whatever he/she wanted.

But GIA seems bent on making some kind of argument here...

Darned if I can even tell what it is.

My favorite: if you can't make your own shoes you aren't free. Try as I might, I can't find squat about cobblin' in the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

As for his argument: that was thoroughly shredded early on.

This thread is for time wastin', and nuthin" but.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:44 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:49 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:36 am I understand it this way: when done skillfully it’s actually the best way to debate philosophy

Should a philosophical discussion be a debate? Certainly the purpose of philosophy cannot be to win debates and convince others (unless you think it's some kind of evangelism). The discussion of philosophy, if it is to be of any real value to anyone, ought to be a simple exchange of ideas, well explained, so that all participants can judge what is discussed and learn or reject what is available.

There is nothing wrong with a little irony and humor and gentle teasing in such a discussion to keep it interesting. But winning debates? I don't think so. (Whose the judge, anyway?)

I completely agree. And btw, I should have used “discussion” or “discourse” instead of “debate”.

That kind of discussion is certainly refreshing (whether you agree or not). No need to worry about the word you used, it's only a forum, and we both know what you meant now.