Should the purpose of argument ultimately be to reach an agreement?

[Gaze]

Oh, no doubt! There are always those who are good at arguing and those who are not. Good = able to provide fresh insight and rightly challenge your opinions. Bad = unable to give any insight and simply repeating the same argument in different ways. This goes back to what I mentioned about learning anything. My consideration of the audience is whether I think I can learn from them or not.



Oh, ok. Yes, I agree that it's not just the "what" that you stand for, but "how" you stand for it. This is a personal failing of mine that I'm aware of. As I mentioned, I have trouble expressing my view or formulating "the way an argument is made", especially in face-to-face discourse. Writing it out on forums, though, is much more preferable...



Um... Hmm... I think you've lost me a little. What do you mean by "effective"? Especially if your point is you don't want to assume that arguments are simply about challenging someone and trying to convince them they are wrong?

If you mean that you can't argue without listening, then I agree 100%.



Oh, ok. I think we're crossing the streams as far as what we're talking about. I think you are right that rhetoric is a form of art/science of crafting a persuasive argument, sort of the lawyer talking to the jury. I don't necessarily equate arguing with rhetoric, personally, or a "good arguer" with a "persuasive speaker". So I may be misinterpreting what you mean.

Again, though, I agree that not considering that audience is one of the greatest sins a rhetorician can make.



Oh! No no no. I'm sorry you misunderstood what I meant. I guess this is a great example of me not being able to explain myself well...

I don't really look at an argument as a war, or at least I don't like to. The goal is to get to the truth together, because one perspective can never ever see the complete truth (unless, somehow, you are a god, I guess). I look at an argument maybe as more of a discussion or conversation, but I want to be careful to not give you the impression that I also equate argument with idle chatter. An argument is when various people with various perspectives on a single issue can bring forth those perspectives for examination, dissection, and ultimately challenge to try to find what the truth is together.

When I say someone is a bad arguer, what I mean is they are not interested in progressing the discussion towards a common goal of finding the truth. Instead, they are interested in "winning the war", and what I've seen most of the time is these people end up falling into a rut where they cannot make new points, they can only re-hash the same point but in different ways, hoping that it is enough to "beat the opposition". I do not claim these people are "pig headed" at all, just that they are not interested in reaching a common goal of truth, only in winning a war that I have no desire to be in. That's all!

So, what you're really asking is about rhetoric, right? Not how to find the truth, but rather how to persuade someone that your truth is better than theirs. Are you at all worried that in those cases there's a risk you may be disingenuous? In other words, going back to the lawyer talking to the jury, do you worry that you may fall into the trap of "representing a true criminal" just because it is your "job" or "duty" or whatnot, rather than a true belief in what you are saying. And yes, I would agree that having a belief is helpful in rhetoric, but I disagree that it is necessary, as we can see from disingenuous lawyers and politicians over and over.

I also want to question your concern over "blaming the arguer for not seeing truth". You are assuming, I think, that the argument is a one-way street. Or maybe you're saying that you think that's what I'm assuming? I don't think that, though I do think sometimes rhetoric is a one-way street. Whatever the case, I would never "blame" someone for not seeing the truth, as I myself don't always see it! And I'd hate to think someone would blame me for that; I think we're all in the same boat there... I would, however, blame someone for intentionally avoiding the truth. That's different. I sometimes call it "willful ignorance", or such a deeply held fear of the cognitive dissonance of finding themselves wrong, that they begin to get irrational. Continuing an argument with such people is a waste of precious time and breath (and frustration) in my opinion. I don't blame them for not seeing the truth, I blame them for intentionally trying to avoid it.

Sorry for the confusion!

No, I likely misunderstood. Thanks you for responding! Great comments.

 

[muir]

For me the purpose is just to challenge and stir things up. Because often it's like people just want to say their opinions without being challenged like they just want to hear themselves talk or something. Like everybody cares.

To me it is really selfish and self centered to drop a "this is what I think" and expect it to stay in a pristine bubble completely unchallenged, like they don't want to argue or even discuss but they still want to say stuff. What makes them think anyone wants to hear it?

People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts

if someone shoots out an uninformed opinion that defies the facts then i think it should be contested

If someone has spent a lot of time looking at the facts and makes an informed statement then the wise listen to it and the wise want to listen to it

 

[Gaze]

I don't think an agreement has to be reached but I think it helps to understand the other side's before going at it. There seems to be a tendency to be very dismissive of other people's argument in search of the truth. If something doesn't seem to fit with what someone already believes or feels is true, it's immediately discredited to make way for a more sympathetic or preferred view. If a position challenges what someone feels or believes, it's thrown aside as irrelevant or inadequate. So, the nature of debate seems directly tied to the reasoning and approach of each person in the argument, their intent, actual progression of the argument, expected outcomes, and the resolution which may not be a resolution at all. Each person comes with their own baggage to the table and believes they are right, and may not realize their own baggage is holding them back from seeing other sides or angles. If the goal is to get to the truth, there has to be some self awareness and the recognition that this baggage exists and may color they view of their opponent's argument.

 

[Delta]

I would say that it is not possible to reach an agreement all the time anyway. Recognising such times isn't rocket science. I am happy to let people have their views and I don't believe that a person has to have a well formed argument to be interesting. So, I guess I see things more as problem solving than debating. The art of problem solving is to be able to address multiple points at point a and point b but ideally to be at point c. Most people's self esteem is wasted at point a when they debate and so I find them boring. A person who can outline the points is more valuable in my eyes because people are going to do whatever they choose to do anyway. Thinking of clients here.

At the level of group consciousness, I find that those who debate are doing so for the benefit of the group; they flow with existing ideals of intelligence etc. I am wary of group consciousness, it's all a bit Darwinian for me. Most don't even know the full title of his most well known theory.

So, I recognise some people need to argue because their self esteem is locked into the schedule of getting from point a to point c but logically, I value the process itself and understand some can arrive at point c quicker and so see most things as problem solving techniques. This probably is a means of picking suitable friendships too. One has to be open and have similar patterns of problem solving to get along.

Debating is a means I think of remaining detatched. I'm not sure how healthy that is. I will muse on this later. Thanks [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] for your points especially x

 

[Lark]

I would say that it is not possible to reach an agreement all the time anyway. Recognising such times isn't rocket science. I am happy to let people have their views and I don't believe that a person has to have a well formed argument to be interesting. So, I guess I see things more as problem solving than debating. The art of problem solving is to be able to address multiple points at point a and point b but ideally to be at point c. Most people's self esteem is wasted at point a when they debate and so I find them boring. A person who can outline the points is more valuable in my eyes because people are going to do whatever they choose to do anyway. Thinking of clients here.

At the level of group consciousness, I find that those who debate are doing so for the benefit of the group; they flow with existing ideals of intelligence etc. I am wary of group consciousness, it's all a bit Darwinian for me. Most don't even know the full title of his most well known theory.

So, I recognise some people need to argue because their self esteem is locked into the schedule of getting from point a to point c but logically, I value the process itself and understand some can arrive at point c quicker and so see most things as problem solving techniques. This probably is a means of picking suitable friendships too. One has to be open and have similar patterns of problem solving to get along.

Debating is a means I think of remaining detatched. I'm not sure how healthy that is. I will muse on this later. Thanks @Lark for your points especially x

I dont know that debating deserves the bad reputation it has, I understand that it is possibly inferior to discussion or dialogue, I actually accept that and there's some good books written about it and how this development and framing was pretty important to a lot of changes in academic research findings because without a dialogue paradigm people just sought to adopt and defend positions, becoming emotionally invested in the process, most of the time never realising that its not A or B but really C which is important.

On the other hand debating can be fun and it can be sport, if you lose at least you dont have to the lose the lesson, even if its just the simple lesson that you cant be expected to win all the time (and eventually maybe that win-lose doesnt benefit the cause of truth seeking at all).

A lot of light has been cast upon discussion, of every single sort there can be, for me by studying psycho-analysis, both the school of thought itself and the better criticisms of it, there is a lot of defensiveness and resistance to insight in much discussion, if not the most of it. I'm not being conceited about this because I have recognised it in myself sometimes, with the decline and disappearence of socialism and all the history associated with that.

I really do believe that the whole of mankind is more rationalising than rational, there is so much which is affect and emotion driven, I am a thinker and prefer that function set but I do think that a lot of cognitivism and other schools of thought exaggerate the extent to which thinking can or does prevail. I also dont think that emoting and unacknowledged affect driven arguments are anything to be necessarily ashamed of, nothing human should be foreign to anyone, but they can be obsticles.

 

[Gaze]

Different things appeal to people in argument or debate. The idea that argument has to be approached in the same way by everyone involved can limit the potential for learning from differences. Usually when there is a heated discuss, although people can learn a heap, it makes it difficult to reason fairly because it becomes about emotion. However, cold rational approaches can also be a turn off for some. Someone who communicates with feeling and passion about what they believe, even if they're being irrational, and that can be more interesting than someone who is being very logical and objective.

 

[La Sagna]

I appreciate any good rhetorical argument whether I agree with it or not. It's an art form.

I used to think that having an argument or discussion about something important was about proving your point to the other person. I realized over time that this is not at all the point of it because if it were then most arguments fail miserably and are a waste of time. Arguing any position or concept is about sharing ideas. If the people involved in the argument are not locked in to a blind and irrational bias to their position then they can pick up new ideas that may influence them in the future, even if they don't agree with them at the time. I am always wary of anybody who claims to know the 'truth' and be in a position to lecture someone else on that. That to me is a sign of someone who is narrow-minded and narcissistic. A rational but humble argument is worth so much more than the claim to absolute 'truth'.

 

[Eventhorizon]

If I argue its because I feel that its worth it. My idea is that a common understanding is achieved and a solution can be born of that understanding that is compatible with all of the relevant parties involved.

 

[Matt3737]

It's the maintenance of equilibrium; social, mental, and emotional.

 

[sprinkles]

People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts

if someone shoots out an uninformed opinion that defies the facts then i think it should be contested

If someone has spent a lot of time looking at the facts and makes an informed statement then the wise listen to it and the wise want to listen to it

People can have all the facts they want but if they're using it to tell me what to do, it's still an opinion.

Also:
1. I'm not wise, I'm an idiot
2. I know you're actually talking about yourself in the meta

 

[Solongo]

Should the purpose of argument ultimately be to reach an agreement? Why or why not?

Well it depends. Those who can release their need to be right all the time will have the potential to reach an agreement and ultimately understanding. But most people just want to be right and just want to express their ideas regardless of acceptance.

 

[muir]

People can have all the facts they want but if they're using it to tell me what to do, it's still an opinion.

Also:
1. I'm not wise, I'm an idiot
2. I know you're actually talking about yourself in the meta

No one is telling you what to do in that scenario

they are putting over information on the internet and you are then choosing to read it and get hot and bothered by it

 

[sprinkles]

No one is telling you what to do in that scenario

they are putting over information on the internet and you are then choosing to read it and get hot and bothered by it

Ok you didn't get the subtle hint so now I have to make it obvious:

STOP MAKING THIS BE ABOUT YOU

 

[muir]

Ok you didn't get the subtle hint so now I have to make it obvious:

STOP MAKING THIS BE ABOUT YOU

Good idea...lets make it about you
You said that you would argue with someone just because you felt they shouldn't be allowed to speak unchallenged but what kind of attitude is that?

Surely what matters is whether or not you agree with the person?

if you agree with someone why argue just for the sake of it?

 

[muir]

For me the purpose is just to challenge and stir things up. Because often it's like people just want to say their opinions without being challenged like they just want to hear themselves talk or something. Like everybody cares.

Why do you care who cares?

if people want to read then let them read

You'll know if people are reading because the thread will have lots of hits

You don;t get to decide what people should listen to you only get to decide what YOU listen to

Of course you can have a little tantrum though but it doesn't mean anyone will listen to you (people generally listen to things that interest them)

To me it is really selfish and self centered to drop a "this is what I think" and expect it to stay in a pristine bubble completely unchallenged, like they don't want to argue or even discuss but they still want to say stuff. What makes them think anyone wants to hear it?

If its interesting to people they will read it

And what is interesting to people is upto them not you

 

[sprinkles]

Good idea...lets make it about you

That is not what I intend.

You said that you would argue with someone just because you felt they shouldn't be allowed to speak unchallenged but what kind of attitude is that?

That is actually not what I said.

Surely what matters is whether or not you agree with the person?

No. Agreement means nothing.

if you agree with someone why argue just for the sake of it?

To test things and see if they stand up to scrutiny. To see if they really mean what they say. To see what their true motives are. To open up new possibilities for ideas which can't be possible if we're too attached to current ones. To break up complacent pet theories by introducing uncertainty so that the idea is constantly evaluated and reformed.

 

[muir]

That is not what I intend.

That is actually not what I said.


No. Agreement means nothing.


To test things and see if they stand up to scrutiny. To see if they really mean what they say. To see what their true motives are. To open up new possibilities for ideas which can't be possible if we're too attached to current ones. To break up complacent pet theories by introducing uncertainty so that the idea is constantly evaluated and reformed.

I disagree with you

I'm not so interested in pissing all over the person (although ill defend myself when others strike)

I'm interested in finding out if the information being put over is true or not

A lot of people seem to think that their opinion matters...it doesn't

What matters is how strong a foundation their opinion is a built upon

 

[the]

Agree that im right.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

Whatever. This is pointless with you as usual. I'll let the meta handle this.

 

[muir]

@muir

Whatever. This is pointless with you as usual. I'll let the meta handle this.

Yeah i think ive wasted enough time here