Argumentation I
How should we debate?
Why should we debate?
Should we debate?
One of the oldest forms of debate is the Socratic dialectic method. When i think of the Socratic dialectic i think of two things:
1) A form of debate focused on challenging assumption
2) A form of debate that seeks truth by moving away from particulars and toward the more general
It is this latter part of the dialectic that becomes so apparent in thinkers like Hegel and today's Metaphysical Realists. Their logical structures dominate their thinking, whether they believe those structures represent the world or just the human capacity to think about the world.
I am not a fan of this part of the dialectic. Then again, i am not a fan of metaphysics, analytic or otherwise. I do not see it as a kind of knowledge worth pursuing. I have no problem conceeding that the truths discovered are often logical truths, and perhaps there are even big Truths (with the capital T) out there to be discovered, though i have not found them.
What is a kind of truth worth seeking?
Back to Socrates and his use of the method. He challenged assumptions and, in general, used the Reductio ad Absurdum argument form to bring his opponents into his view that they know nothing. That is fine and well for the topics at hand, the seeking after definitions of things like Virtue (with the capital V). Such terms, virtue, courage, power, justice, freedom, etc ... i am nihilist myself in regards to them. (At best i might approach them as does Aristotle in the Aristoteleon Spheres method , but that is here beside the point.)
It was not right for Socrates to say his fellow Athenians knew nothing though. Some of the building amonst which he stood and carried out debates, they are still standing. They obviously knew something about the world. They built a sailing fleet and defeated the Persians.
The question then: "What is it the Athenians did know?" ... "And how did they know it?"
What form of debate and style of thinking will lead us toward these answers?
And further, today ... what do we know and how do we know it? ... and how should we even approach the question?
That is, to me, the key task to keep in mind when we choose a mode or modes of debate.
Why should we debate?
Should we debate?
One of the oldest forms of debate is the Socratic dialectic method. When i think of the Socratic dialectic i think of two things:
1) A form of debate focused on challenging assumption
2) A form of debate that seeks truth by moving away from particulars and toward the more general
It is this latter part of the dialectic that becomes so apparent in thinkers like Hegel and today's Metaphysical Realists. Their logical structures dominate their thinking, whether they believe those structures represent the world or just the human capacity to think about the world.
I am not a fan of this part of the dialectic. Then again, i am not a fan of metaphysics, analytic or otherwise. I do not see it as a kind of knowledge worth pursuing. I have no problem conceeding that the truths discovered are often logical truths, and perhaps there are even big Truths (with the capital T) out there to be discovered, though i have not found them.
What is a kind of truth worth seeking?
Back to Socrates and his use of the method. He challenged assumptions and, in general, used the Reductio ad Absurdum argument form to bring his opponents into his view that they know nothing. That is fine and well for the topics at hand, the seeking after definitions of things like Virtue (with the capital V). Such terms, virtue, courage, power, justice, freedom, etc ... i am nihilist myself in regards to them. (At best i might approach them as does Aristotle in the Aristoteleon Spheres method , but that is here beside the point.)
It was not right for Socrates to say his fellow Athenians knew nothing though. Some of the building amonst which he stood and carried out debates, they are still standing. They obviously knew something about the world. They built a sailing fleet and defeated the Persians.
The question then: "What is it the Athenians did know?" ... "And how did they know it?"
What form of debate and style of thinking will lead us toward these answers?
And further, today ... what do we know and how do we know it? ... and how should we even approach the question?
That is, to me, the key task to keep in mind when we choose a mode or modes of debate.
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home