Discussion/debate/argument

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Simon E.
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Simon E. » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:42 am

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:32 am
Simon E. wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:07 am
I like flawed logic. It has more 'truth.'
Level 4. Let's see if you can fall any lower...
And here come the ad homs...'lower' being presumably derogatory in this context. :smile:

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.
Gone fishin' :smile:

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:43 am

Simon E. wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:42 am
Greg, I don't recognise that heirachy.
Sticking your head in the sand, that is always a good strategy.

Now that we have proven, through this discussion, that the hierarchy posted above is valid (wheteher you think it is or not), can we put the issue to rest?

Thanks.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Simon E.
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Simon E. » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:46 am

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:40 am
Simon E. wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:27 am
Quoting the Guru is acknowledging and reaffirming my own personal source of authority. Not an attempt to convince anyone else.
Not 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.
Fine. I'll step away. Just as I did with the 'Aro' debate.. and kept to my word.
And just as I am doing with the 'Vegetarian' debate and will keep to my word.
Gone fishin' :smile:

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:50 am

To clarify: Lacking the ability to explicitly refute the point, find the error and show where the error lies and counter-argue on the basis of evidence and reasoning, you turned to contradiction.

Touche.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:52 am

Simon E. wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:46 am
Fine. I'll step away. Just as I did with the 'Aro' debate.. and kept to my word.
And just as I am doing with the 'Vegetarian' debate and will keep to my word.
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? :shrug:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Mantrik » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:02 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:27 am
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?
Thats not the way I see it.
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.
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.

My general point, which precedes the ChNN HHDL posts (;)), is that having samaya means that someone may find it is problematic, maybe having simultaneously to hold a pure view of their perfect teacher, whilst understanding that they have been proven to be wrong in any dispassionate analysis of their view.
So debating online and offering counterarguments using one's Guru as a source may cause dualistic thinking and, alien to a Dzogchenpa, a limitaton. The danger is also that then we regard any counterargument to our Guru's views, if it shows them to be wrong, as ad hominem and react badly.


So either we deal with this cunundrum by attributing a higher level of thinking to our Guru, and this explains why they are only apparently wrong in mundane terms, whilst it is just that we don't yet understand. Or we go for the 'crazy wisdom' angle as a last resort, to preserve our ability to see the Guru as perfect when to others they are apparently talking crap.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by seeker242 » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:40 pm

Chart should have this as an addendum or something. :tongue: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

Dharma Flower
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Dharma Flower » 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

boda
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by boda » Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:58 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:35 am
7_arguments.jpg
Kinda like an inverted food pyramid, with most consuming their calories in the form of sugar, fat, salt, and starches.

Image

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:31 pm

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
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.

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?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Dharma Flower
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Dharma Flower » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:14 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:31 pm
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
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.

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?
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.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:30 pm

Dharma Flower wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:14 pm
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.
This is a teaching outlining how contemplatives should act. Are you a contemplative? A monk? A brahman?

In the same teaching the Buddha says:

"Abandoning uncelibacy, he lives a celibate life, aloof, refraining from the sexual act that is the villager's way. This, too, is part of his virtue."

Do you also follow this instruction, or is this one you leave behind and move on from?

The particular teaching is about the conduct of an ascetic, as such it does not really apply to us.

By continuing to debate and discuss the issue, you are also not applying the very teaching you claim we should follow.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Fa Dao
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Fa Dao » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:53 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:35 am
7_arguments.jpg
ok, so why is refutation higher than counter argument....not sure I agree with the order...why isnt counter argument at the top?
"But if you know how to observe yourself, you will discover your real nature, the primordial state, the state of Guruyoga, and then all will become clear because you will have discovered everything"-Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:08 pm

Fa Dao wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:53 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:35 am
7_arguments.jpg
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...

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.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
anjali
Global Moderator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by anjali » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:09 pm

For a bit more description of each step in the disagreement hierarchy, see: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html. From the conclusion:
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.
Image

Dharma Wheel Terms of Service and Reporting Procedures.
Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for kindness. –-Seneca

User avatar
Ogyen
Posts: 707
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Ogyen » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:11 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:59 am
That really does rip off Maslow’s triangle so will post it here just to illustrate that:

Image

We can argue about that if you want but just sayin’
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 can't refute the argument. This picture just sucks. :rolleye:

...Just kidding....
Last edited by Ogyen on Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive - nosce te ipsum

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy

User avatar
Ogyen
Posts: 707
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Ogyen » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:12 pm

Fa Dao wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:53 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:35 am
7_arguments.jpg
ok, so why is refutation higher than counter argument....not sure I agree with the order...why isnt counter argument at the top?
I think explicitly is the key word there.


The sky is pink!
No. It is not.
*Crickets chirping*

So obvious it's not worth the next level down.. counterargument
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive - nosce te ipsum

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy

User avatar
Ogyen
Posts: 707
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Ogyen » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:30 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:22 am
You mean these guys ripped off Maslow?

the-great-pyramid.jpg
:rolling:
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive - nosce te ipsum

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy

User avatar
Fa Dao
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Fa Dao » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:31 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:08 pm
Fa Dao wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:53 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:35 am
7_arguments.jpg
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...

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.
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...
"But if you know how to observe yourself, you will discover your real nature, the primordial state, the state of Guruyoga, and then all will become clear because you will have discovered everything"-Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Discussion/debate/argument

Post by Grigoris » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:38 am

Fa Dao wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:31 pm
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...
"God does not exist and thus cannot create the universe."

The onus of responsibility is then on the person making the positive claim, to prove the existence of God. If they can pull that off then they have to show how God created the universe. Up until they pull that off all I have to do is sit and listen (or go for a beer, in this particular instance). If they manage to come up with something logical and intelligent, then I might proceed to prove them wrong or counter their argument with, I dunno, a theory of physics? An explanation of Dependent Origination?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Inge, Majestic-12 [Bot], odysseus, Supramundane and 48 guests