 |
| |
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
I never understood why ad hominems, emotional appeals, etc. are not considered legitimate debate techniques. For what reason are they not?
One's reason, one's rationale for his beliefs, are not the only issue at debate in a discussion. Reason is only the mental justification of emotional instincts. One instinctively feels that market capitalism is wrong and rationally creates marxism to mentally justify his emotions. Is this somehow not true?
That being said, ad hominems, appeals to emotion, etc. should be legitimate as they bypass the somewhat silly concept of reason and drive at the heart of one's beliefs, the emotions.
Frankly, i find this whole Platonic dialogue method of debating to be stupid as it ignores the fact that reason is just the reasoning (hence the two meanings of reason in english; which should correctly be seen as inter-related) for our emotions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
No, though I have always been bothered that in my debates here on apolyton, my points have often been dismissed as being ad hominems and other supposed bad debate techniques.
This idea of bad debate techniques is just a Platonic fabrication. How can logic not be anything besides the mental justification for gut instinct? Maybe I'm crossing too much into Nietzsche territory here but I can not comprehend any other alternative. How else do we have our political persuasions, etc? Why are you a communist, Tassadar? I see no alternative besides that your spirit, so to speak, believes (as in that gut instinct definition of believes) in communism and you discovered Marx to serve as a justification for your emotional belief.
Therefore, an opponent's bypassing of 'logic' and driving straight for the heart of one's opinions: the heart, is not only legitimate but is the more practical way of debating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
Azazel:
why do you cling onto silly Platonic 'logic'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
Urban:
spherical or flat earth theories are due to observation, you are right. I do not see how this conflicts with, let's say, one's stance on a certain political issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
Albert Speer's Little Book of Logic?
I wonder if Hume, from an empiricist perspective, and Nietzsche, from an intuitionist perspective, got the same responses when they were effectively argueing the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
I never understood why ad hominems, emotional appeals, etc. are not considered legitimate debate techniques. For what reason are they not?
One's reason, one's rationale for his beliefs, are not the only issue at debate in a discussion. Reason is only the mental justification of emotional instincts. One instinctively feels that market capitalism is wrong and rationally creates marxism to mentally justify his emotions. Is this somehow not true?
That being said, ad hominems, appeals to emotion, etc. should be legitimate as they bypass the somewhat silly concept of reason and drive at the heart of one's beliefs, the emotions.
Frankly, i find this whole Platonic dialogue method of debating to be stupid as it ignores the fact that reason is just the reasoning (hence the two meanings of reason in english; which should correctly be seen as inter-related) for our emotions. |
OK speer, Ill try to seriously answer your question even if it is a troll.
If a person is open minded enough to accept that they may be wrong, regardless of whether they are or not, and if the conventions for debating have been established ("logic"), then something can be proven or disproven based on its own merits without the inherit biases that emotion brings.
Ad hominems are illogical because they dont actually address the point, but they attack the person making it. If a writer said 2+2=4, he's no less wrong than if a mathematician said the same thing. You shouldnt consider the source of the information, only the information itself. Let it be proven or disproven based on its merits. (Unless your judging the integrity of the information given to you rather than judging its state of being correct or incorrect.).
quote:
One instinctively feels that market capitalism is wrong and rationally creates marxism to mentally justify his emotions. |
True. Morality requires an emotional basis.
Yes, its on an illogical foundation. Emotions should not be completly discarded, however anything that relies on emotions is subjective and thus cannot be used by logic to be proven one way or the other. Communism isnt right to someone who thinks humans are drones to be used.
Edit: BTW, I just saved your thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stylesjl
|
|
My theory of doomsday is correct because your past is filled with drink driving
That is an ad hominem
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
Tass:
quote:
You shouldnt consider the source of the information, only the information itself. Let it be proven or disproven based on its merits. |
But why? Are not the artist and the art inter-connected, as in the adage, "the art praises the artist"? Hiedegger's analysis of art can also apply to beliefs, etc. There are three aspects of concern... the creator, the created, and the thing; that which, in a way, sparked the creation. The created is the thing, or the interpretation of the thing, through the perspective of the creator.
Therefore, according to Hiedegger (who makes sense to me so why not you?), there is an inter-connection between the artist and the art; a connection made possible through the motivating 'thing'.
To transpose this into discussions, you are the artist who creates the art of a reasoned debate, which is but your, the creator's, reflection of the motivating thing. The created is of the creator and of the thing. Therefore, bypassing the created and attacking the creator and the motivational thing is legitimate. In fact, it makes more sense to attack the creator or the thing rather than the created, as attempting to disprove the created does not get you into the heart of the issue... as the art itself is but a continuation or extension, so to speak, of the artist and the motivational thing, reasoned arguements are only the tip of the iceberg in a way... disproving them does not change the motivations for their creation.
also, it can not be stressed enough how reasoned debates are just an extension of the creator and the motivational thing and, therefore, understanding and defeating the creator and his motivations is an aspect of understanding and defeating the reasoned debate
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2004 12:37
|