And here come the ad homs...'lower' being presumably derogatory in this context.
Greg, I don't recognise that heirachy.
Its just a codified section of the thicket of views.
In reality I am probably in the minus section.
And here come the ad homs...'lower' being presumably derogatory in this context.
Sticking your head in the sand, that is always a good strategy.
Fine. I'll step away. Just as I did with the 'Aro' debate.. and kept to my word.Grigoris wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:40 amNot when you do it publicly. Then you expect people to "give a sh*t".
Unless you take part in discussions just to preach, that is. Which is horribly boorish, to say the least.
Once it is public, it is up for debate. If you cannot handle that, then it is better not to go public.
So from now on you are going to enter discussions, contradict what is being said without providing evidence for your position, and when countered, pout and storm off? That will be your new strategy?
If you use your Guru as the source of authority for a view in a discussion, then you must be doing so either to support or refute someone else's comment, surely. If you were reaffirming it for yourself alone, there would no point in commenting.Simon E. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:27 amThats not the way I see it.Mantrik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:18 am So, quoting their Guru can be seen by a person as an irrefutable negation of someone else's argument, the highest authority, unassailable. Debate over. Top of the pyramid.
And of someone else responds by criticising the Guru's position as crackers, we're right back down to the ad homs again............or are we, if the argument is impuned rather than the Guru........or is any knock-down of a Guru's words a terrible breach of samaya?
Quoting the Guru is not a refutation of an argument. I have no interest in refuting arguments.
All verbal formulations are eventually misleading to a greater or lesser extent.
Quoting the Guru is acknowledging and reaffirming my own personal source of authority. Not an attempt to convince anyone else.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — ‘You understand this doctrine and discipline? I’m the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You’re practicing wrongly. I’m practicing rightly. I’m being consistent. You’re not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You’re defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!’ — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Well, it is just as well that I (all of us in this discussion, so far) am not a "braman or contemplative, living off food given in faith" then, isn't it? Nor am I the Buddha.Dharma Flower wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:42 pm The Buddha had some important words regarding debates and arguments:
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — ‘You understand this doctrine and discipline? I’m the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You’re practicing wrongly. I’m practicing rightly. I’m being consistent. You’re not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You’re defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!’ — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
We are disciples or followers of the Buddha, and these are instructions provided to us by the Buddha. It's not a matter of debate or argument if we can either take it or leave it and then move on.Grigoris wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:31 pmWell, it is just as well that I (all of us in this discussion, so far) am not a "braman or contemplative, living off food given in faith" then, isn't it? Nor am I the Buddha.Dharma Flower wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:42 pm The Buddha had some important words regarding debates and arguments:
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — ‘You understand this doctrine and discipline? I’m the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You’re practicing wrongly. I’m practicing rightly. I’m being consistent. You’re not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You’re defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!’ — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
So I guess this particular quote is completely irrelevant for the sake of this discussion?
And don't you find it ironic that you enter a discussion on the nature of discussion/debate, to tell us that we shouldn't be taking part in a discussion/debate, by taking part in the discussion/debate?
This is a teaching outlining how contemplatives should act. Are you a contemplative? A monk? A brahman?Dharma Flower wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:14 pmWe are disciples or followers of the Buddha, and these are instructions provided to us by the Buddha. It's not a matter of debate or argument if we can either take it or leave it and then move on.
ok, so why is refutation higher than counter argument....not sure I agree with the order...why isnt counter argument at the top?
Because this is about proving that a person's point is mistaken, it is not about proving that your point is correct...
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
I was just going to attack how it's rainbow colored without actually addressing its content ...then I realized physiology was at the same level of name-calling and I got distracted by the tangent.
I think explicitly is the key word there.
ok..so, for example..what would a refutation of "god created the universe" as opposed to a counterargument look like? Not trying to bust your balls just want to understand this whole thing better...Grigoris wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:08 pmBecause this is about proving that a person's point is mistaken, it is not about proving that your point is correct...
After proving a point as mistaken, one can then proceed to a counter point or argument, if they wish. It is not always necessary.
Let's say somebody says: God created the universe. You can just refute the claim, there is no need to posit a counter position.
"God does not exist and thus cannot create the universe."