Man, I have a law, not a theory, not a corollary, not a rule, a suggestion or a guideline, but a law.

Unfortunately there is someone out there in the past, probably going back to the classic philosophers who have already postulated the same law. So in addition to being always wrong I’m hopelessly derivative.

But hey, having a law on Dean’s World is like being on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Define "everything."

:)

Gentlemen,
I wish it was true-that argument and debate is only the result of presupposition and semantics. That is the analysis du jour of the academy. Alas, it is not so.
Argument and debate also arises out of a lack of reliable information. What is worse, however, is that knowledge is becoming more and more subjective. Platonics is beginning to overwhelm Aristotelian logic, which is basically what you are refering to when you decry the prevalence of assumption in debate.
What is diconcerting, though, is that there does not seem to be a real quest for the facts anymore. Whereas, the rationalists would make assumptions based on what they believed to be "givens" and then make deductions; nowadays there aren't any "givens." Yet, folks just go on to make deductions based on their "impressions" (prejudices).
This is dangerous because there is no inductive reasoning at all- no unprejudiced fact-
gathering. This fact-gathering process is not being taught in the academy. As a matter of fact about the only thing being taught in the academy these days is subjectivity a la Immanuel Kant. So, whomever has the ear of the initiate begins the prejudicial teaching process with "feelings" and ends it with non sequitors.
I do't trust my feelings and was taught how to analyze through fact gathering and evaluation based on logic. While that process is not infallible, it sure beats the hell out of the "depends on what your definition of is is" equine fecal matter that poses as an intellectual
endeavor.
What really worries me is that I have DEDUCED that the only ones who benefit from this current state of affairs are demogogues and tyrants. They are laughing gleefully as our journalists become advocates and our educators become sophistic propagandists.
I became aware of this premeditated degradation of the intellect when, as an educator, I began to investigate the academy's decision to shift from phonetic grammar to whole language in the public schools and in the Head Start program. What I found did as much damage to my patriotism as did Watergate and the debacle in Vietnam. What I discovered then was a long-range plan to reduce all argument and debate to, as you said, assumptions and definitions.
I know, I know; this sounds conspiratorial and if that be treason, then so be it.

Yes. It is what I call "not being on the same page."

... the academy's decision to shift from phonetic grammar to whole language in the public schools and in the Head Start program. What I found did as much damage to my patriotism as did Watergate and the debacle in Vietnam.

I'm really trying to decide if this post is a parody or if it's for real.

I think we have discovered a new law: All overly-intellectual yet actual-idea-free essays inevitably become paranoid conspiracy theories.

Jokes? Is he any relation to Iris DeMent?

I would tend to agree. I'll add a corollary: If you are arguing with someone and attempt to define the terms of the argument, and the person you are arguing with reacts with derision, run away. You're arguing with a moron.

75% assumptions,
24% definitions,
1% - blah blah blah.

btw, "where is the love?"

While there is a lot of truth in the statement, the 99% figure is way too high. Otherwise, we'd just walk around with Dictionaries to ensure good understanding. Good argument covers assumptions and defintions, but goes well beyond it.

A good parallel is Math. It has Axioms and Theorems that must be understood before clear communication can be made. But there is a helluva a lot more to Math than just the basics. The same goes for language, except it is much less rigid than Math.

People attempting to communicate have a responsibility to establish basic assumptions and definitions, then compelling arguments and debate can take place. Both the "sender" and "receiver" have a responsibility to ensure clear communication is being made. But communication is a whole lot more than definitions and assumptions.

So I respectfully disagree.

Brian,

You are very correct. Yesterday I tried to have a coherent conversation about environmentalism with someone over at the Atrios site. Every time I tried to figure out what his POV was, he would change it and accuse me of avoiding his accusations.

My statement was that I thought the Earth was a robust system and not in grave danger from mankind. I also identified myself as a utilitarian, and conservationist, but not a preservationist. Trying to chase him down rabbit trails was frustrating, and when I refused respond to being baited with accusations, he took that as evidence that his accusations were true.

So you are correct in saying that someone who refuses to agree to basic rules of communication should be avoided.

BTW, that is why I appreciate Dean (most of the time.) He tends to get rid of those who are irrational on both ends of the spectrum. I do wish he would make an exception for me though. =>

I generally agree with Pat, although I personally think it is the absence of Platonic ideals that causes the problem, and too many false shadows that we are seeing from our vantage point in the cave... In addition, to suggest that the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (the author of the categorical imperative!!!) rests on an acceptance of subjectivity is to ignore the "Critique of Practical Reason," entirely, IMHO. However, debating philosophy makes my head spin, so I'll get back to the point. That is, real, fundamental differences do exist.

For example, my son was studying the Declaration of Independence, and what struck me was the beginning of the second paragraph, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights....," If the Declaration was written today, would anyone have the backbone to write anything about self-evident truths? As if such things existed!

It especially galls me when I hear educated people actually defending the oppression of women in some countries because, "It's their culture." We're not on the same page, and never will be.

A quick search of the 'net finds:

Voltaire: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Will Durant: "How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms!"

Alfred North Whitehead: "How many arguments could have been avoided if only the participants had bothered to define their terms."

"It especially galls me when I hear educated people actually defending the oppression of women in some countries because, "It's their culture." We're not on the same page, and never will be."

I totally agree. I, too, am outraged by that, have been for a very long time.

Immanuel Kant? Unfortunately, in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals", he articulated the doctrine, now extremely prevalent today, that, if you have a selfish motive, your action is without moral worth. And, by "selfish", he did not mean in the shallow pecuniary sense, but also in the deeper and higher meanings, a love of beauty, desire for artistic expression, sexual desire, a sense of pride, and also benevolent feelings toward others.
Auguste Comte, the atheistic collectivist who coined the term "altruism", as well as "positivism" and "sociology", took this even further and argued that the religious desire to go to Heaven was morally unworthy because it is selfish.
I am diametrically opposed to these philosophies and proud to be selfish, in the deepest and highest sense of all that that word entails.

Yes, that part of Kant's philosophy always struck me as a little odd, it so goes against human nature and thought that it's very hard to give it much credence. Although, most of those wild philosophical ideas seemed much more credible when I was 21 and ensconced in the hallowed halls of the university!

I personally believe in the "Whistle While You Work," theory of goodness, first articulated by, uh, Walt Disney. Later clarified in the treatise entilitled, "A Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Medicine Go Down," a fine example of why it is acceptable to enjoy doing good works. Especially if you have three kids and are going to Disney World next week;-)

My point isn't to support Kant, just to put in my two cents worth about whether or not one would consider the subjectivity of truth as a core teaching of his. I submit that, if his works are looked at as a whole, he does not advance that outlook.

Dani:

Excellent! You and I agree profoundly. I wasn't trying to jump on you for mentioning Kant, you were making an epistemological point while I was making an ethical point. That's good for both of us. I must say, in favor of Kant, that he was a good astronomer and the first to conceive the nebular hypothesis of the origin of our solar system.