Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
Life Arts

The Three Discussions

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Ben Dench       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   1 comment

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 28369
- Advertisement -
The different types of discussions we have and how we can become confused about them.

In any given argument, you are either:

1. Talking about what different people want (an ethical discussion over competing values)

2. Talking about how people are defining terms (a discussion over language, in which the field of logic represents the formal attempt at clarifying our language so that we are not talking over each other. Within the context of this type of discussion, Wittgenstein is quite right that there are no philosophical problems, only language problems)

- Advertisement -

3. Talking about what the external facts in a situation are (an epistemological discussion concerning objective/external reality)

These areas bleed into each other. For example, every definition is itself a value assertion over how to break up and organize the external facts of reality, so people may actively seek to not be on the same page so as not to cede to their opponent's way of organizing. In turn, different values (desires) are often the result of different beliefs about the facts concerning external reality, which leads to an attempt to define things in different ways (although different values (desires) can also be the result of other things, such as how things relate in terms of power. If a fox eats a chicken, it is good for the fox and bad for the chicken. Their opposition is not reducible to a disagreement over the facts in the situation).

- Advertisement -
Nevertheless, being aware of the distinction between these different discussions helps us to avoid confusing one for the other. Values (desires) aren't reducible to facts--people may agree entirely about the facts and still want different things. Facts aren't reducible to values (desires)--wanting something to be the case doesn't necessarily make it so. And the words we use are not the same as external facts--words are contracts between people, and every single person that uses a word enters into a renegotiation concerning its connotations and denotations. Definitions by their nature cannot be true or false in the same way that external facts are--only more or less useful. At the same time, words are not merely based on the desires of any given individual, because their purpose is communication between individuals.


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Ben Dench graduated valedictorian of his class from The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey in the Spring Semester of 2007 with a B.A. in philosophy (his graduation speech, which received high praise, is available on YouTube). He is currently (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Interview with Richard Carrier

The Origin of Hell

Violent Jesus

How We Know That Christianity Is Not True

The Origin of Satan

On Masochism