Interview with Theaetetus

Do you ever pick an argument apart just for the fun of it, even when you agree with their general point?

Ken it may seem that way, to people who argue as a hobby, however most people use the argument as a means to an end. The end being proving themselves right.

Ken you and I, much like the answer here to Q18, synthesize almost everything from a different vantage point. We are not likely to agree on much. I normally work things from an agent's functional vantage point, which often works as (what was the motivation and subsequent behavior), You are much more formally logical. So if you would like to assume that I am agreeing with you, feel free.

An argument is woth knowing indeed. however an argument is simply a method for legitimizing an agenda. The argument itself has only need of being as good as the people listening to/reading it. Thus the motive which instigates a specific argument, its style, direction, tangent, and formal logic is of paramount importance. The argument itself simply serves a function. It can be a hammer or a feather depending upon the motive's function which it serves.

I indeed do have a materialist/idealist opinion. My opinion is that it doesn't matter if the moon dissapears when I close my eyes because I will act as if it is still there. My belief in the moon takes precedence over its actual being.

But if you believe in the Moon, then don't you believe that it exists even when you close your eyes.How you your both believe in the Moon, and think it is not there when you close your eyes? My three year old granddaughter used to believe that when she put her hands in front of her eyes, that I would disappear. That is called, peekaboo. But no adult (I hope) believes that.

Galileo's argument for the conclusion that the rate at which bodies fall is not affected by the weight of the falling body caused a paradigm shift in physics. I don't think it would have done so if it had not been a sound argument. Do you?

So how often are you tempted to cry out B.S. in a thread but don't?

In RL do people ever find it annoying that you can pick their arguments apart so easily?

Do you ever pick an argument apart just for the fun of it, even when you agree with their general point?

See again, what you hope adults do is neither here nor there, what they do is what they do, and no amount of hoping can change it. And not so subtly putting people down who may assume that the moon disapears by equating them with a three year old's peek-a-booing, and aluding to the "educated adult average person by exclusion of the idealist" is one of the reasons that I don't think the argument is as important as its function in regards to the motive. The motive here being that you have an agenda to push and are not ashamed of using potentially belittling analogies and veiled references to the weird people who believe weird stuff to achieve it.

Refering back to galileo's argument, cool, the argument is sound. Its soundness is neither here nor there, its soundess would never have mattered if the rest of the world were not ready to hear it. There are masses of people who see anything a Pope says as sound simply because the papal decree has an argument that they are ready to believe. Again the argument a Pope uses is a means taylored for an end. What is important is the belief structure and functiaonal motive that the argument, and not the method it is put together. papal decree is a valid argument because it uses the method best suited for its function.

And, isn't it true that if you do " believe in the Moon" as you say you do, then it follows that you do not believe the Moon vanishes when you close your eyes, unless you are three years old? As an adult, you believe that objects persist even when not observed. That is a part of the adult view of the world, I should think.

On the forum, I don't really care so much. Members could make a career out of calling out people that are full of sh!t, but it wouldn't do any good. People are generally full of sh!t, myself included, especially when it comes to philosophy and religion--and more so that members can pretty much be full of sh!t anonymously. That is just the nature of the beast.

This is a really good point that I'm not sure we've talked about much here.

Just this morning, as I sipped coffee and perused the latest threads and responses, again I came across probably a half dozen threads that have half-baked ideas and are thus either phrased badly or contain thoughts not thought through. Like you, I generally don't address these. The thing is, we ought to keep in mind that if our objective is to communicate, then if a reply is likely to be rejected, nitpicked or derailed then more damage is done with no quantifiable good. I suppose its akin to the "Pick your Battles Carefully"-thought.

And you're also right about the anonymous factor. This is a very pervasive aspect of the online culture - that of anonymity and lack of repercussions (as well as more coporeal 'rewards'). It leaves us disconnected and without the inevitability of reciprocity, since you neither see my face nor interact with me. I'm a ghost that bears no responsibility and can just move on, not respond or even ignore, all which combine together to remove any sense of responsibility. For the trolls that frequent these waters, anonymity enables them while lack of repercussion encourages it. Bleh - I suppose that too's the nature of the beast; the downside to the goodness we do enjoy.

Good thoughts, thanks

for some reason, the anonymity doesnt bother me-i know we are all anonymous, assuming we dont know each other outside of this forum, so that makes us equal. we all choose whether to lie or tell the truth, just like people do when they meet face to face and know each other's names. and anonymity isnt a requirement for stupidity or thoughtlessness or frivolity, arrogance or rudeness and lack of responsibility.

This is a really good point that I'm not sure we've talked about much here.

Just this morning, as I sipped coffee and perused the latest threads and responses, again I came across probably a half dozen threads that have half-baked ideas and are thus either phrased badly or contain thoughts not thought through. Like you, I generally don't address these. The thing is, we ought to keep in mind that if our objective is to communicate, then if a reply is likely to be rejected, nitpicked or derailed then more damage is done with no quantifiable good. I suppose its akin to the "Pick your Battles Carefully"-thought.