Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ConsciousAI]

The very idea that we have chosen a side before the discussion is a roadblock to progress. We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy. We should all be not just willing, but eager to see our preconceptions be disproved, because then we truly will have learned and become wiser.

I agree with this 100%, which is why I believe that debate has no place in philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

The very idea that we have chosen a side before the discussion is a roadblock to progress. We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy. We should all be not just willing, but eager to see our preconceptions be disproved, because then we truly will have learned and become wiser.

I agree with this 100%, which is why I believe that debate has no place in philosophy.

I agree with this 100%, which is why I started this topic, to see if our members agreed with me or not.

[LuckyR]

I don't have a problem with psychological "tricks" in philosophical debates since if everyone uses them, they cancel each other out and the inherent logic (and illogic) of the competing viewpoints are left to stand (or fall) on their own.

And what if such chicanery is not employed by *everyone*? Must I behave so poorly, just so that I can join in?

It's been my experience that of all of the potential audiences of a "debate", those of "competing" philosophical ideas are the best equipped to ignore the sizzle and concentrate on the steak. In fact among the hardcore and academics use of "such chicanery" would be a negative.

[Esther Deekor]

Debates and Philosophy?
This is a bit controversial for me because I actually believed that debates sought out truths but now, I kind of agree that it doesn't fit into a philosophical notion because the fact that the crowd agrees with it doesn't make it true. Unlike philosophy which doesn't seem to care about popular opinion but is concerned with only sourcing out the truth, so therefore, I agree with you that debates doesn't fit in with philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't have a problem with psychological "tricks" in philosophical debates since if everyone uses them, they cancel each other out and the inherent logic (and illogic) of the competing viewpoints are left to stand (or fall) on their own.

And what if such chicanery is not employed by *everyone*? Must I behave so poorly, just so that I can join in?

It's been my experience that of all of the potential audiences of a "debate", those of "competing" philosophical ideas are the best equipped to ignore the sizzle and concentrate on the steak. In fact among the hardcore and academics use of "such chicanery" would be a negative.

And yet the competence of the audience, not to be persuaded or manipulated, still does not affect the fundamental criterion of debate, that success depends on persuasiveness, not on philosophical worth or value. Is it your position that consensus obtained by persuasion is a desirable or acceptable substitute for progress on the philosophical path to knowledge and understanding?

[Stoppelmann]

As portrayed in Plato's dialogues, Socrates was often sceptical of the Sophists, who were professional educators in ancient Greece who taught skills such as rhetoric. In this context, rhetoric refers to persuasive speaking and argumentation. Socrates was critical of the Sophists because he believed they were more concerned with persuasion for its own sake, without necessarily seeking the truth.

On the other hand, Socrates was primarily interested in pursuing truth and knowledge through dialectical questioning and dialogue. He was known for engaging in philosophical conversations to uncover and examine ideas. In several dialogues, Socrates challenged the Sophists' emphasis on persuasive techniques and argued that true knowledge and wisdom should be the goals of intellectual inquiry rather than mere persuasive skill.

That sounds "persuasive" to me

[JackDaydream]

As portrayed in Plato's dialogues, Socrates was often sceptical of the Sophists, who were professional educators in ancient Greece who taught skills such as rhetoric. In this context, rhetoric refers to persuasive speaking and argumentation. Socrates was critical of the Sophists because he believed they were more concerned with persuasion for its own sake, without necessarily seeking the truth.

On the other hand, Socrates was primarily interested in pursuing truth and knowledge through dialectical questioning and dialogue. He was known for engaging in philosophical conversations to uncover and examine ideas. In several dialogues, Socrates challenged the Sophists' emphasis on persuasive techniques and argued that true knowledge and wisdom should be the goals of intellectual inquiry rather than mere persuasive skill.

That sounds "persuasive" to me

In your thinking about sophistry and persuasion, I am left wondering about the nature of 'cleverness' and the natue of the intellect. Some rational aspects can be seen as rhetoric, as being attempts to justify, especially in accordance with human motives in human explanation. On the other hand, ideas may be a way of going beyond human motives in the areas of human belief. This is where it gets complicated, and the interplay of emotional and rational aspects of ideas of debate involve both logic and psychology, as one basic inherent tension in thinking.

[LuckyR]

I envision a (professional) philosopher noodling within his own skull to come up with his philosophy using nothing but life experience and logic. However, when the same individual has to "sell" his philosophy to others, I envision the same philosopher using every trick in the book to advance his creation in the competitive world of ideas.

Is a philosopher a competitor, or only a contributor? Does (s)he "sell" ideas, or merely present them for consideration? Is philosophy subject to competitive (commercial) pressures now? [And I don't mean to refer to working philosophers, anxious to obtain grants and funding, although that is certainly an issue for them.]



Does AmeriCapitalism trump (pun intended) philosophy now? Is that what our world has become? Or am I getting carried away by a misunderstanding?

Well, I stipulated a professional philosopher. An amateur doesn't need to "sell" his philosophy.

[Diyan77]

Debate undeniably holds a significant place in the realm of philosophy. At its core, philosophy thrives on questioning, exploring, and critically analyzing ideas. Debate serves as the conduit for this intellectual discourse, allowing philosophers to dissect concepts, challenge assumptions, and refine arguments.

Through debate, philosophers engage in a dialectical process, exchanging perspectives to arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas. It fosters intellectual growth by pushing individuals to defend their beliefs rigorously while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

Moreover, the history of philosophy itself is a testament to the pivotal role of debate. From Socratic dialogues to contemporary academic forums, philosophical progress often emerges from the clash of differing opinions.

However, it's crucial to note that debate in philosophy isn't merely about winning arguments but about pursuing truth and expanding knowledge. When conducted respectfully and with a genuine pursuit of understanding, debate becomes a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, enriching the discipline and guiding the search for profound insights into existence, ethics, knowledge, and more.

[Pattern-chaser]

Debate undeniably holds a significant place in the realm of philosophy. At its core, philosophy thrives on questioning, exploring, and critically analyzing ideas. Debate serves as the conduit for this intellectual discourse, allowing philosophers to dissect concepts, challenge assumptions, and refine arguments.

Through debate, philosophers engage in a dialectical process, exchanging perspectives to arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas. It fosters intellectual growth by pushing individuals to defend their beliefs rigorously while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

Moreover, the history of philosophy itself is a testament to the pivotal role of debate. From Socratic dialogues to contemporary academic forums, philosophical progress often emerges from the clash of differing opinions.

However, it's crucial to note that debate in philosophy isn't merely about winning arguments but about pursuing truth and expanding knowledge. When conducted respectfully and with a genuine pursuit of understanding, debate becomes a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, enriching the discipline and guiding the search for profound insights into existence, ethics, knowledge, and more.

Thanks for your reply, Diyan, and welcome to our forum!

I read your post with interest. But, in the context of this topic, when you write "debate", I find my self reading "(co-operative?) discussion". That's what it sounds like to me. Have I got this wrong, and taken from your words the wrong impression? For the debate you describe seems not to involve persuasion as its raison d'etre, but sensible and rational inquiry, and the search for knowledge and understanding.

[LuckyR]

Debate undeniably holds a significant place in the realm of philosophy. At its core, philosophy thrives on questioning, exploring, and critically analyzing ideas. Debate serves as the conduit for this intellectual discourse, allowing philosophers to dissect concepts, challenge assumptions, and refine arguments.

Through debate, philosophers engage in a dialectical process, exchanging perspectives to arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas. It fosters intellectual growth by pushing individuals to defend their beliefs rigorously while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

Moreover, the history of philosophy itself is a testament to the pivotal role of debate. From Socratic dialogues to contemporary academic forums, philosophical progress often emerges from the clash of differing opinions.

However, it's crucial to note that debate in philosophy isn't merely about winning arguments but about pursuing truth and expanding knowledge. When conducted respectfully and with a genuine pursuit of understanding, debate becomes a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, enriching the discipline and guiding the search for profound insights into existence, ethics, knowledge, and more.

Thanks for your reply, Diyan, and welcome to our forum!

I read your post with interest. But, in the context of this topic, when you write "debate", I find my self reading "(co-operative?) discussion". That's what it sounds like to me. Have I got this wrong, and taken from your words the wrong impression? For the debate you describe seems not to involve persuasion as its raison d'etre, but sensible and rational inquiry, and the search for knowledge and understanding.

Well pointing out a legitimate weakness in another's theory is valuable to the theory's author, whether they realize it or not. Also regardless of the intention of the individual who pointed it out.

[Gee]

Debate undeniably holds a significant place in the realm of philosophy. At its core, philosophy thrives on questioning, exploring, and critically analyzing ideas. Debate serves as the conduit for this intellectual discourse, allowing philosophers to dissect concepts, challenge assumptions, and refine arguments.

Through debate, philosophers engage in a dialectical process, exchanging perspectives to arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas. It fosters intellectual growth by pushing individuals to defend their beliefs rigorously while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

Moreover, the history of philosophy itself is a testament to the pivotal role of debate. From Socratic dialogues to contemporary academic forums, philosophical progress often emerges from the clash of differing opinions.

However, it's crucial to note that debate in philosophy isn't merely about winning arguments but about pursuing truth and expanding knowledge. When conducted respectfully and with a genuine pursuit of understanding, debate becomes a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, enriching the discipline and guiding the search for profound insights into existence, ethics, knowledge, and more.

Thanks for your reply, Diyan, and welcome to our forum!

I read your post with interest. But, in the context of this topic, when you write "debate", I find my self reading "(co-operative?) discussion". That's what it sounds like to me. Have I got this wrong, and taken from your words the wrong impression? For the debate you describe seems not to involve persuasion as its raison d'etre, but sensible and rational inquiry, and the search for knowledge and understanding.

A "cooperative discussion" might be a debate, but it also might be another kind of conversation that brings forth no new information. This could be worthless to philosophical inquiry.

Do you really think that all inquiry needs to be "sensible and rational" in order to be valid?

I think that Diyan has made some valid points; besides, if you removed debate from philosophy, what would you replace it with?

Gee

[mashininimotlalepula]

I think debate does have a place in philosophy because when we debate we are in search of information and knowledge. In the process of searching for the truth and knowledge one does gain the philosophy skills and a deep understanding of issues

[Pattern-chaser]

Debate undeniably holds a significant place in the realm of philosophy. At its core, philosophy thrives on questioning, exploring, and critically analyzing ideas. Debate serves as the conduit for this intellectual discourse, allowing philosophers to dissect concepts, challenge assumptions, and refine arguments.

Through debate, philosophers engage in a dialectical process, exchanging perspectives to arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas. It fosters intellectual growth by pushing individuals to defend their beliefs rigorously while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

Moreover, the history of philosophy itself is a testament to the pivotal role of debate. From Socratic dialogues to contemporary academic forums, philosophical progress often emerges from the clash of differing opinions.

However, it's crucial to note that debate in philosophy isn't merely about winning arguments but about pursuing truth and expanding knowledge. When conducted respectfully and with a genuine pursuit of understanding, debate becomes a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, enriching the discipline and guiding the search for profound insights into existence, ethics, knowledge, and more.

Thanks for your reply, Diyan, and welcome to our forum!

I read your post with interest. But, in the context of this topic, when you write "debate", I find my self reading "(co-operative?) discussion". That's what it sounds like to me. Have I got this wrong, and taken from your words the wrong impression? For the debate you describe seems not to involve persuasion as its raison d'etre, but sensible and rational inquiry, and the search for knowledge and understanding.

Well pointing out a legitimate weakness in another's theory is valuable to the theory's author, whether they realize it or not. Also regardless of the intention of the individual who pointed it out.

Fair points. But I still feel I must return to my central point. Debate focusses on persuasion, with the search for knowledge and understanding demoted to (at best) second priority. Is that one point enough to bar debate from philosophical discussion, though? I think it is, and you...?

[Pattern-chaser]

Debate undeniably holds a significant place in the realm of philosophy. At its core, philosophy thrives on questioning, exploring, and critically analyzing ideas. Debate serves as the conduit for this intellectual discourse, allowing philosophers to dissect concepts, challenge assumptions, and refine arguments.

Through debate, philosophers engage in a dialectical process, exchanging perspectives to arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas. It fosters intellectual growth by pushing individuals to defend their beliefs rigorously while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

Moreover, the history of philosophy itself is a testament to the pivotal role of debate. From Socratic dialogues to contemporary academic forums, philosophical progress often emerges from the clash of differing opinions.

However, it's crucial to note that debate in philosophy isn't merely about winning arguments but about pursuing truth and expanding knowledge. When conducted respectfully and with a genuine pursuit of understanding, debate becomes a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, enriching the discipline and guiding the search for profound insights into existence, ethics, knowledge, and more.

Thanks for your reply, Diyan, and welcome to our forum!

I read your post with interest. But, in the context of this topic, when you write "debate", I find my self reading "(co-operative?) discussion". That's what it sounds like to me. Have I got this wrong, and taken from your words the wrong impression? For the debate you describe seems not to involve persuasion as its raison d'etre, but sensible and rational inquiry, and the search for knowledge and understanding.

A "cooperative discussion" might be a debate, but it also might be another kind of conversation that brings forth no new information. This could be worthless to philosophical inquiry.

I think a debate is a competitive discussion, and the primary aim is to win, by persuading the audience that yours was/is the better argument. Of course any conversation that is without potential for learning is a waste of time, philosophically speaking.

Do you really think that all inquiry needs to be "sensible and rational" in order to be valid?

For philosophical purposes, yes?

I think that Diyan has made some valid points; besides, if you removed debate from philosophy, what would you replace it with?

Gee

Co-operative discussion. Such as the one we're having right here, right now?