Q&A: Argument
Argument
Question
Argument
My claim is divided into two main parts regarding argumentation: its very essence, and the proper and recommended method for using it.
An argument, in its essence, hides the premises on which it rests and merely builds on them towering heaps of persuasion, so that an argument is really nothing but rhetoric disguised as logic.
And if so, then a successful argument is one that manages to conceal the rhetoric well, and therefore also its reliance on a premise.
The purpose of making an argument is to divert the listener from the premise on which it rests, and the only possible way to do this is to convey that there is no encounter here between opposing premises at all. For if there were, each side would simply stick to its own view, and the whole point of argument is to get beyond that. Rather, the hidden claim in an argument—in every argument—is that there is no such thing as premises at all, but only that the truth simply emerges on its own from reality, out of analytical emptiness.
And the method—since the argument supposedly arises from reality, it must be expressed clearly and distinctly, and stated without any justification, simply as an expression of the idea in its “purity,” even prior to the logic that supports it. If the emphasis were reversed, the attentive reader would recoil and suspect that they were trying to load a claim about reality onto empty analytical calculations. But the truth is that this is not how it should be; rather, the claim about reality should be carried by the logic, and thereby supported, but not at all thereby confirmed as correct.
Answer
Is this a passage from some ancient manuscript? We should call Champollion to decipher it and explain to us the context in which it was written.
Discussion on Answer
No. Sometimes there is a problem in the logical derivation because the argument is invalid. Moreover, even if I accept the premises and also the logical derivation, sometimes I still find that I do not agree with the conclusion. In such a situation I have an internal contradiction, and I need to resolve it. It may be that I will still prefer the conclusion and be forced to reject one of the premises, even though they seem reasonable and correct to me.
I deal with all this in detail in the critical thinking course I am giving these weeks.
By the way, why can't you ask the question the way you just wrote it now, and instead have to send weird, incomprehensible riddle-texts?
Let Maayan come and explain the exalted layers of his original riddle; I certainly did not understand from it any more than what I wrote.
How can one resist wondering about an argument that tries to abolish discussion about arguments without explaining how it itself escapes the problem.
I was mistaken.
I will try to explain.
1. Argument = rhetoric, and not an addition of knowledge
2. An argument does not try to confront the counterclaim but only the person making it
3. An argument should be stated explicitly and not implicitly; for example, if I want
to persuade someone that a certain act is moral, then in order to succeed in persuading them of that I need to say it without any
reasons.
Of course, the question for the Rabbi is whether this is correct,
Thank you.
A terse and seemingly profound formulation sounds very impressive on the surface. But reading it reveals that this is a collection of declarations, some of which have no meaning at all, and the others are simply very stupid. So I will respond briefly, and in the future, if you want to discuss something, please explain rather than declare.
1. A valid logical argument does not add information. But there are other arguments that do add information (analogy or induction and the like). Rhetoric is something else entirely, and usually it definitely does add information. In fact, that is the whole purpose of a rhetorical argument.
2. Not true. An argument proves a claim and therefore confronts its opposite. What does that have to do with the person making the claim?!
3. Where did this declaration suddenly fall on us from? If I want to persuade someone that some act is moral, I need to present a reasoned argument for why it is moral.
That's it. I do not intend to answer any further, unless something reasoned and clear comes up here for discussion. I see no point in wasting time on vague and bizarre declarations.
If I try to interpret it, without trying to answer or reflexively take a swipe at the question:
The passage says that one should argue directly about the premises, because everyone agrees about the logical derivation, and there is no point in any other kind of argument. The question is, as usual, whether in your opinion this is correct.