Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 8th, 2024, 11:58 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 5th, 2024, 1:10 pm Well, I love winning, but I accomplish that by acknowledging that others definitely may know more than I do, so I seeking out superior arguments, stealing them and incorporating them into my argument 2.0, so I can improve and thus win.

So I guess the difference is seeking to win today or win tomorrow (and the next day).

A post script to add to our exchange:

Competitive argument is binary win/lose. In co-operative discussion, all those who contribute, win. All of them. No losers.

I don't disagree. I consider myself a winner when I run into someone with a superior (to my 1.0) argument. I'm again a winner the next time when my 2.0 argument is superior.

Debate matters because your cherished notions and behaviour should be reviewed for your own sake and often for others' sakes too.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 8th, 2024, 6:48 pm Debate matters because your cherished notions and behaviour should be reviewed for your own sake and often for others' sakes too.

I agree that one should review one's assumptions from time to time. But how are you suggesting this fits in with debate?

I can't see how it could be argued that there's no place for debate in philosophy. It would be nice if, on a philosophy forum like this one, the norm was for people to construct lengthy, impeccably written OPs with reasoned arguments supported by evidence. But that is usually not the case. This is a free-for-all forum made up of amateurs and not a university philosophy department. Most of what we do here is informal debate - thee or four line posts - back and forth. It's not the formal, rigidly controlled type of debate between professional philosophers that occasionally gets televised or live-streamed, but it is still a ragged sort of debate. Ideas get tossed into the ring and folks argue for those they like and sometimes succeed in swaying others. It's very rare to see lengthy, cogently argued pieces of written philosophy worthy of publication in a philosophy journal on forums like this. What we get is an informal type of free-for-all, a back-and-forth debating of ideas just like in this thread. But that's ok. It sorta works.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 9th, 2024, 8:13 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 8th, 2024, 6:48 pm Debate matters because your cherished notions and behaviour should be reviewed for your own sake and often for others' sakes too.

I agree that one should review one's assumptions from time to time. But how are you suggesting this fits in with debate?

Same as any other other review , simply by good use of communications such as language, logic, and the pictorial and performing arts. And of course media such as online discussions, explicit conversations and a room to have them in, and books.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑January 9th, 2024, 8:40 am I can't see how it could be argued that there's no place for debate in philosophy. It would be nice if, on a philosophy forum like this one, the norm was for people to construct lengthy, impeccably written OPs with reasoned arguments supported by evidence. But that is usually not the case. This is a free-for-all forum made up of amateurs and not a university philosophy department. Most of what we do here is informal debate - thee or four line posts - back and forth. It's not the formal, rigidly controlled type of debate between professional philosophers that occasionally gets televised or live-streamed, but it is still a ragged sort of debate. Ideas get tossed into the ring and folks argue for those they like and sometimes succeed in swaying others. It's very rare to see lengthy, cogently argued pieces of written philosophy worthy of publication in a philosophy journal on forums like this. What we get is an informal type of free-for-all, a back-and-forth debating of ideas just like in this thread. But that's ok. It sorta works.

I agree, it does work. This because because what one considers to be badly written and badly reasoned makes an honest thinker ask himself what is wrong with the presentation or the logic.

It's harder work than reading a well presented and well argued piece, because one has to think harder.The result is you get the opportunity to do hard thinking.

That's right. I've learned more here through our ragged philosophical debates than I have through all my reading in philosophy heretofore. Books on philosophy and published philosophical treatise are not aimed at a general audience and the "folk" don't generally read them. In a forum like this, reading what others have to say in short posts is much easier than trying to take in a whole philosophical treatise or whole books on philosophy. Forums like this are messy but they do open up philosophical discussion to the folk. And writing responses to other's posts forces (hopefully) one to think before letting loose and allows one to make changes before actually hitting the submit button. I think it's great.

Before I started here, I had no idea what Idealism or phenomenology were about and I was clueless about Continental philosophy in general. But debates here sparked my curiosity and lead me to read about Idealism and phenomenology on Wiki, at SEP, and at the IEP. I then felt even more curious and read or re-read several books in which Idealism was discussed. So I've achieved a much broader understanding of philosophy through debates on this forum.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 11:17 am That's right. I've learned more here through our ragged philosophical debates than I have through all my reading in philosophy heretofore. Books on philosophy and published philosophical treatise are not aimed at a general audience and the "folk" don't generally read them. In a forum like this, reading what others have to say in short posts is much easier than trying to take in a whole philosophical treatise or whole books on philosophy. Forums like this are messy but they do open up philosophical discussion to the folk. And writing responses to other's posts forces (hopefully) one to think before letting loose and allows one to make changes before actually hitting the submit button. I think it's great.

Before I started here, I had no idea what Idealism or phenomenology were about and I was clueless about Continental philosophy in general. But debates here sparked my curiosity and lead me to read about Idealism and phenomenology on Wiki, at SEP, and at the IEP. I then felt even more curious and read or re-read several books in which Idealism was discussed. So I've achieved a much broader understanding of philosophy through debates on this forum.

That's right. However there is an awful lot to get through. here. When you study philosophy as an undergraduate the tutor leads the discussion by asking pointed questions that include leading you to review your own prejudices and statements, and by presenting known arguments in perhaps more easily assimilable form, and by picking out key texts. All this gets the student moving along much faster.

I agree that the formal study of philosophy is important. It is from the current crop of university students studying philosophy that new insights into deep questions in, for example, metaphysics and moral philosophy, will come. But it's also important that there be places like this forum where ideas can be thrown into the ring in a sort of free-for-all. Not all of us can study philosophy at university and places like this bring philosophy to the folk. And most young folk I know spend more time online these days than they do reading long treatise, so places like this give them a way into philosophy.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 9:28 am I agree that the formal study of philosophy is important. It is from the current crop of university students studying philosophy that new insights into deep questions in, for example, metaphysics and moral philosophy, will come. But it's also important that there be places like this forum where ideas can be thrown into the ring in a sort of free-for-all. Not all of us can study philosophy at university and places like this bring philosophy to the folk. And most young folk I know spend more time online these days than they do reading long treatise, so places like this give them a way into philosophy.

I wonder! I have my doubts . I wonder if any research has been done on that. I myself find it less effort to sit down at the computer than to sit down with a book, and I know I learn more from selected books if book is at the right academic level for me.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 21st, 2023, 12:30 pm My understanding of debate is that it is a competition between two opponents. Each present their arguments to an audience, and the winner is the one who receives the most audience votes. So the most important skill for a debater is persuasiveness, not factual correctness, or truth, or even offering the best-reasoned argument. The 'winner' is the one who convinces most voters to support them. To influence the consensus by persuading and convincing the audience.

If my impression of debate is fair, and accurate, then such a practice is counter-productive to a philosophical investigation, which seeks out truth, if it can, and understanding too, also if it can. It is the opposite of debate, it seems to me.

Have I got this right, or am I just misunderstanding "debate"?

You're fixated on one meaning. "Debate" often means no more than "lively argument."

Of course, lively argument may be philosophically irrelevant, too. Lost of allegedly great philosophers like William James and Joshua Royce, John Rawls and Robert Nozick made careers out of arguing with each other to absolutely no purpose. Swift said it best, "One cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason his way into." So you may be on to something profound there after all.

An individual or individuals adopt a philosophy based upon their foundational belief systems.They then adopt this philosophy to a science that they hope concurs with it.

The philosophy that is generally accepted and is presently adopted as the foundation for all the sciences has failed by observation and this explains why it cannot explain the psychological.

It’s time for a change of foundational philosophy and don’t we all know it.

A philosophy and science has to meet the requirements of the psychological.If they can’t explain the psychological then trash them.

Xenophon wrote: ↑January 14th, 2024, 4:14 am You're fixated on one meaning. "Debate" often means no more than "lively argument."

Yes, it does ... in everyday parlance. However, I think the use of 'debate' in a philosophical context can be seen as a more formal usage, such as is being discussed here, in this topic?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 14th, 2024, 10:39 am

Xenophon wrote: ↑January 14th, 2024, 4:14 am You're fixated on one meaning. "Debate" often means no more than "lively argument."

Yes------ it does.in everyday parlance. However, I think the use of 'debate' in a philosophical context can be seen as a more formal usage, such as is being discussed here, in this topic?

The most used formal medium for a serious philosopher is a book. This is because when one reads a book one debates with the author. Unless this silent debate is going on the reader risks being indoctrinated by a clever or charismatic author.

The debate with the author of your book should happen with a good novel , or any other work of art or imagination. There should be a conversation going on between you and the author. If a conversation with the work of art or the text is not possible the book or work of art is probably meant for decoration , protest, entertainment , instruction, polemical or financial profit.