Philosophy Now Forum

Reading, writing and reviewing philosophy.

I would like to mention 2 books which I frequently turn to :

'Thinking from A to Z' - Nigel Warburton
'Philosophical Writing' - A. P. Martinich

Both start off with similar quotes which emphasize the need for clarity.

Warburton chooses John Searle :

If you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself.

Martinich goes with Nietzsche :

Those who know they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity.

Now, of course, some can understand logical symbols as clear as day.
Me ? My eyes glaze over.

However, I can recommend Martinich's book for the clearest explanation of 'Logic and Argument for Writing' - ch 2.
Even I can find my way around the p's and q's !!

Ch 5 deals with 'Tactics for analytic writing'. Here he describes seven of the most important : definitions, distinctions, analysis, dilemmas, counterexamples, reductio ad absurdum, and dialectical reasoning.

Of course, reading this and understanding it enough to apply it is where my challenge lies.
Also, I guess it is only through practise that one can ever get to grips with argument analysis.

This is where the PN forum can come into its own. I, for one, don't always grab the opportunities to analyse or argue a point. Sometimes, I only get so far,and then get strangled in the knots.

I really need help in identifying various moves in argument.

Here, Warburton's book is excellent in explaining and providing examples of phrases such as :

Devil's Advocate
Humptydumptying
Rash Generalization
Ad Hominem move
and ' you would say that wouldn't you'


and having said all that, sometimes one just needs to jump in the deep end and learn the hard way !?

M.

What's 'humptydumptying'? This sounds like a marvellous put-down.

Lewis Carroll had Humpty Dumpty say "Words mean what I want them to mean".

Lewis Carroll had Humpty Dumpty say "Words mean what I want them to mean".

Thanks mick. I guess this means that Humpty Dumpty is particularly vulnerable to Wittgenstein's private language argument.

Hi

Rortabend wrote:What's 'humptydumptying'? This sounds like a marvellous put-down.

Yes, I guess it can be used as such. Launt introduced the term into a discussion about the meaning of stimulus-response in the thread ' Good O'l fashioned creativity' - December the 20 somethingth.

Warburton's first line re humptdumptying :
' Giving private meanings to words in common use'.

This can lead to confusion if there is no explicit stipulation of what a term means. When accused of 'humptydumptying' then, you are accused of deliberately misleading.

However, my question would be, is it always necessary to stop and define terms in an argument ? Can it not be assumed that people have shared understanding of eg the words 'stimulus' and 'response'. Particularly when within a specific context ?

M.

Hi

Rortabend wrote:

Lewis Carroll had Humpty Dumpty say "Words mean what I want them to mean".

Thanks mick. I guess this means that Humpty Dumpty is particularly vulnerable to Wittgenstein's private language argument.

What's Wittgenstein's private language argument ? This sounds like a marvellous wheeze !