Maverick Philosopher

Nihil philosophicum a me alienum puto

To promote independent thought about ultimates. Philosophy, commentary on the passing scene, and whatever else turns my crank. Since 4 May 2004. By William F. Vallicella, Ph.D., Gold Canyon, Arizona, USA. Motto: "Study everything, join nothing." (Paul Brunton) Latin Motto: Omnia mea mecum porto. Turkish motto: Yol bilen kervana katilmaz. (He who knows the road does not join the caravan.) All material copyrighted.

Five Serious Uses of Argument

Even among calm and reasonable people, few are persuaded by argument, even when it satisfies the canons of logic. Changes of view under dialectical pressure are seldom seen. Most just dig in and fortify their defenses. This raises questions about the utility of argument, debate, and discussion. Call me sanguine, call me naive – but I believe in their utility. Herewith, a preliminary catalog of the uses of argument.

(show)

Posted by William F. Vallicella on Sunday July 10, 2005 at 1:18pm
Michael B:
"Call me sanguine, call me naive – but I believe in their utility."

We live in an ideological cum secular religious age of such a pronounced and highly aggressive stripe, wherein argument and rhetoric of varied kind are an aspect of the warp and woof of social/political discourse, that it is reasonable to think someone naive, and not a little, who does not believe in the utility of argument, rightly understood. (This fact is fraught with pitfalls, certainly, but this secondary fact does not make it any less true.) As is noted, arguments may not be advanced primarily or solely to persuade, but for sundry and varied and necessary reasons nonetheless.

What to advance, how to advance and where to stand, within each set of arguments, in order to attempt to apply a kind of Archimedean point, is certainly subjective and debateable and open to critique. Perhaps an ethic of jus ad bellum and jus in bellum could be applied to social/political argument, given the varied agendas, tempers, presumptions, insinuations, insurgent-like tactics, etc. of the times. That latter is intended, partially, tongue in cheek. Partially.
7.10.2005 11:58pm
Bill Vallicella (mail) (www):
You make the reader work too hard.
7.11.2005 10:07am
Michael B:
You're right, sorry about that.
7.11.2005 3:06pm
Clark Goble (mail) (www):
Aren't the strongest argument against capital punishment both the cost question and the epistemological question? I've actually switched from being very strongly pro-capital punishment to being much more luke warm.

I don't oppose it on theoretical grounds. Just that it seems there is a big danger of killing the wrong person. Our justice system wisely is based on the idea that it is better that some evil not receive justice than some innocent receive unjustice. Thus capital punishment is worrying.

The second issue tends to be court costs and the like. Even if one isn't morally opposed to capital punishment, one can see it as not cost effective, especially with all the automatic appeals required at the moment.

Perhaps you might do a post regarding those points some day? I've never found an adequate response to them.
7.12.2005 4:06pm
Bill Vallicella (mail) (www):
Clark,

Your points are serious and need to be addressed. Perhaps in a separate post before too long. Thanks for commenting.
7.12.2005 5:59pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?
1. Leaving comments is a privilege, not a right. The site administrator is under no obligation to accept comments at all, let alone from any particular person. And to underscore the obvious: nothing in the nature of a weblog requires that it accept comments from readers.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.