@Elmud,
I'm not at all saying you cannot discuss the matter. My objective is to determine whether or not you are
arguing, whether what is going on between you two
can be called argument.
Honestly, I think philosophy does you a disservice if the concluding rounds of your argument consist of nothing more than ad homninem. I thought I would come in and try to at least see whether you two were involved in actual argument. If you are not, then it's not a matter of "agreeing to disagree." What is seen is that there is nothing to agree or disagree over. The nature of the thing between you is not something that you can agree or disagree about, though your positions might nevertheless be
in agreement in the way that cylindrical shapes fit into circular openings, or
in disagreement in the opposing fashion.
The ad hominem nature is referred to by my question regarding character flaw. Naturally, we all have our character flaws, and it seems rather fruitless to pick on the flaws of others, or the those characteristics less so in our control. It seemed to me that the both of you began to argue on basis of nothing other than your personal taste.
Of course, you see that I pull the language game card. But is it I who pulled it? Or did I simply point to it?
If you cannot formulate the problem, then there is no problem. Otherwise, you're making a problem for the sake of some other motive. I'll grant that we can do this. You can do whatever you want. But when I ask if there's a
philosophical problem, you should take that as me asking you to formulate it for me. Telling me that I think I'm better than everyone and all is weightless and groundless outside of my question.
What I would simply like to do is establish that you have no serious philosophical dispute, but you do still have a dispute of "flavor," "taste," "mere opinion," etc. Each of which is respectable within a given context, and it is important what we call things. For we would not wish to engage in philosophical questions at a funeral, and we would not wish to engage in mere opinion at a philosophical seminar. Like so, I propose that a philosophical dispute is not present here.
Though an anthropological one might be. And of course with science comes the demand for induction, testing, demonstration, etc. In the face of such requirements, the requirements of science, should we perhaps be less inclined to speak so boldly, assertively. So it is not I who judge that you take a quieter approach, but it should be, I hope, the realization that you speak on the principles of science, the principles of observation and induction, to justify your claims (in principle). It goes without saying that "All Fs are Gs" can only be true if analytic. Since you are dealing with a synthetic case, you'll have to either argue from intuitions or from empirical findings.
Do you wish to boldly assert this or that from intuition? Have you done the empirical testing necessary to justify your claims about wealthy having a particular trait of character?
Naturally, you can concede this point as well: You merely wish to toss this or that rough and ready thought at each other. So if it's clear that you're not in a position to lose or gain any time, money, energy by way of empirical research and so forth, why get so worked up at each other over mere opinion and (scientifically) vague claim?
