Define the rules of philosophy.!!!

[Jeff_Mash]

Hey there Mustardseed,

I haven't really been following any of your arguments, so forgive me if my points of wisdom don't apply to you.  []

Basically, when I enter a discussion with anyone (whether it be politics, religion, etc.), there are a couple of things I keep in mind:

1) If someone says something I disagree with, I don't throw it back at them.  I pose questions to make them THINK about my side of things.

For example, if you argue that the world is flat, then instead of me saying, "Well, obviously you haven't studied enough", I could pose the question, "Let me ask you, if the world is flat, then how could an airplane fly around the earth and end up in the same spot?"

Simple example, but as you can see, I usually try and argue points strategically.  Arguments should be like a game of chess, not like a boxing match!

2) The most important point which a lot of people NEVER remember.  When you argue, you should ALWAYS have the mindset that "you could be wrong."  This is especially tough when you're arguing about religious convictions, because we hold those so dear to our heart.

However, to truly have a constructive exchange of different viewpoints, you must remind yourself that you could be wrong, and that you're willing to learn some things that you may have never learned before.

That is why, even though I have had 100+ OBE's within the last few years, I never try and profess to know a lot about them.  I may know how to do them, and what it feels like, and the rules of the astral environment, but at the same time, I have to concede that I could be wrong on a lot of things.  

With an attitude like that, it not only keeps me grounded, but it also allows me to learn things from newbies who I would otherwise not take advice from, because of my ego (ex. "Why should I listen to so-and-so, they've only had one OBE!"  There is always something to learn from everyone...even if that something you learn is what NOT to do, or what NOT to say to someone).

[MJ-12]

gfhfgh

[alt0xFF]

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

See the index of logical fallacies, study them, and know them. Learn to recognize them, and never use them yourself, accidentally or intentionally.

There is also Capeck's "12 moves of polemics or a guide to newspaper discussion", but I can't find it in English.

In most discussions that I see on the internet (especially religious), I see people very often using (unknowingly most of the time) either logical fallacies or "illegal" polemical maneuvres. If a debate is free from those, it qualifies as being philosophical.

In any case, read Plato man []

[Mustardseed]

Thanks Jeff and all, very good points. I will read up on those pages you guys sent. I feel that I have tried to do those things but , it seems that I have not. I see the point you bring up about ego Jeff , I have plenty of that. [] I will have to thing about it all and pray too.
Regards Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

Hi Mustardseed,

In the academic world at least, there are two main schools of thought as to how a philosophical argument should be structured. The prefered style in the United States and Britain is the 'analytical philosophy' approach where logic is used to base arguments.

If you want to put forward an argument you have to provide a logical 'premise' that can be said to be 'true'. If the premise is true then the premise is said to be 'sound'. You then follow this line to form a 'conclusion' based on the premise.
(I'm using the quotes here to indicate these terms used in their academic sense). The analytical approach is following the established tradition of classical Greek philosophy.

However, there is also another style of philosophy which doesnt rely on logic and is more a 'stream of consciousness' approach which deals with feelings etc. This is known as the 'continental style'; typically your french existentialists with their berets and turtleneck sweater+pipe types will adhere to this; and is characterisitc of the French & German school.

Analytical philosophy is highly critical of this approach however as it holds logic dear, so you will find it very difficult to have philosophy tought in the 'continental' style anywhere in the UK or US; there, only logical, analytical philosophy is accepted as suitable to teach at undergraduate level (sure, you will be taught about Nietche etc but only AFTER you have been firmly indoctrinated in analytical philosphy first, with a 'logic of philosophy' module being a typical and required component of any given philosophy degree).

btw this is just the academic mode of philosophy, which I have some experience of as I did 1st year philosophy as part of my degree, but I have to say, academic philosophy is really stuck up its own a** IMO

Regards,
Douglas

[Mick]

My thanks to Gandalf, alt0xFF and MJ-12 for the references and everyone else. A useful exercise in constructive posting of messages.

[Mustardseed]

I would like to ask someone to explain to me how the rules for a philosopical argument are. How does one argue?. To me it is very confusing. I am used to weighing my words very carefully and trying my best to say what I mean and mean what I say, but was recently blamed for always taking the "lowest meanings of words"! I don't understand this, and find it as I said.... confusing. My thoughts on any point is not meant to be a philosophy, but is merely me sharing what I believe to be the way things work. More an intuitive making of suggestions. Maybe the forum is more than that, and maybe I am breaking rules I do not even know exist!

(I was told)Your opening statement in the above is unphilosophical, You are breaking the rules of philosophy. You seem to habitually take words and statements at their lowest possible meanings, and then twist these in ways to unfairly criticize people and cause arguments.

If I have hurt anyone by doing this I apologise. It really surprises me that I could be doing this. It has only been my intention to try to share the view from my side of the mountain. I do realise I can have a temper and being a Scorpio dosn't help. However I would assume that there have to be a bit of give and take and mutual understanding for the fact that tinkering with belief systems and stuf like that is a bit sensitive. Please feel free to comment , seems I need some help here.

Regards Mustardseed

Ps If anyone is offended by me including scripture I can stop doing that. I usually try to warn people ahead of time but maybe I failed at this at times. Again it is only my opinion.