Platforms for Reasoned debate/philosophy

  • Thread starter Thread starter AndyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AndyF

Guest
I am probably stating the obvious here. But some questions begging answers.
Code: 
 How should religious debates be conducted.?
What do strive for in a debate:
a/To win on behalf of yourself
b/satisfaction in stalemate
c/to win on behalf of authority
d/to gain favor
e/simply to be understood
fd/other
Code: 
 If man is a servant, doesn't everything he says have an agenda to ensure he doesn't
offend his master.? Would this be a psychological norm in debates.? Does the condition disqualify based on the definition of philosophy?
Code: 
 How is any argument to appeal to unrestrained human reasoning if an influential  threat, whether real or imagined hangs over the opponent?

 Is free philosophical discussion naturally restrained by the limitations imposed by any outside influence? 

 Everytime someone asserts the positive in favor of authority, I am tempted to ask,
“So if your reasoning equated to the negative, you would just as forcefully defend your point of view.”
Code: 
 How much do you limit your free thought if any? Do you give yourself total liberty in this respect, allowing reasoning to equate to whatever what may.? Are you reluctant to
admit a result? Sincerity?
Code: 
 For discussion:
Preventive measures used by the Fathers.
Roadmaps to enlightenment through discussion.
Discernment
Anything I missed.

Your thoughts 🙂

Andy
 
Philosophers are famous for their reasoned arguments. Debate is a political tool for persuading a crowd. Philosophers generally present their philosophical arguments among other philosophers. What the philosophers are concerned about is the teaching of philosophy. The politicians are debating in order to make rules for government, and the people decide, not the philosophers…
 
I agree that philosophy and debate are not always going hand in hand. But, I do think philosophers debate things among themselves - go into the common room of any university philosophy department.

I don’t doubt that a person who thought there would be unpleasant consequences for a particular stance might be influenced, or just keep quiet. OTOH, if the arguments are good, then their motivation is irrelevant from the point of view of the argument. And no matter how honest the POV is, if it is a bad argument it is a bad argument. People often honestly support stupid ideas.
 
AndyF said:
What do strive for in a debate:
a/To win on behalf of yourself
b/satisfaction in stalemate
c/to win on behalf of authority
d/to gain favor
e/simply to be understood
fd/other
Click to expand...
None of the above. The goal of any debate it to arrive at the *truth *of the matter. Winning is irrelevant. If my opponent is correct, then I desire to lose the debate – but only because I desire to know the truth.

Any of the goals listed above are bad reasons to have a debate, unless that debate is simply an exercise in rhetoric.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top