22 Oct
2011
22 Oct
'11
5:39 a.m.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
On 20/10/11 11:58 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Over here we have a saying "Stop arguing you two or I will bash your
heads together!"
Dave Caroline
?>Dave McGuire wrote:
We didn't need to wait for Mr Kahn. The Greeks were all over this one:
?"...we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be
employed, on opposite sides of a questio, not in order that we may in
practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is
wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that,
if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him.
No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric
alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially.
Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well to
the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are,
by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe
in."
?(Aristotle, "Rhetoric")
--T
Hope you're wearing your asbestos skivvies.
[Snip]
At the risk if being naive, perhaps this list could use a bit of
inspiration -
to see if we could help the discussion to be more useful.
There is a book written by Michael Kahn: "The TAO of Conversation".
The primary point is that in an idea conversation, there can never be
an opinion which is right or wrong. Attempting to support an opinion
helps us to understand the opinion even if we totally disagree with that
opinion.
While I agree with both of the opinions of Dave McGuire and Liam Proven,
it seems difficult to figure out exactly which is more useful because they
seem so angry at each other.
We could use a bit of "Barn Raising".
Jerome Fine