Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Is argumentation a zero-sum game?
I have this theory that when people argue they believe that one side must win and one side of the argument must lose. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then can there be an existence where people argue with the purpose of furthering a body of knowledge rather than thinking in terms of winning or losing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that it is very possible for two people to argue a topic with the idea behind it is to enhance a body of knowledge rather than win the arguement. There are many philosophical discussions between two people where the goal is simply to educate the other person about their perspective rather than to try and convince the other person that their perspective is correct. Also I believe that often when a scientist proposes a new model, their purpose is to illiminate new possiblities rather than demand the absolute adoption of their ideas.
I agree that there are instances where people argue with the purpose of forwarding a body of knowledge, but most of these seem to me to be in the academic world. What about in other types of arguments like those of a political nature. Are there areas in the public sphere where people are not so "academic." I started this topic because I am really trying to get at the reason people appear be apathetic to or afraid to argue important political issues. People seem more drawn to issues with more definite solutions, and more drawn to arguments that they see a win or loss to. Does that make sense or am I full of it?
I think some of the philosophical discussions I mentioned can take place in the political sphere. You might be right about concrete issues drawing people but I think it depends on the person.
Post a Comment