Should the purpose of argument ultimately be to reach an agreement?

[muir]

Now that we've got that out of the way... truth sharing has not much to do with arguments or reasons for arguments.

I don't know about that

Many a true word has been spoken in arguments

Sometimes people have to have a shift in consciousness before they will speak the truth and that shift of consciousness can come from a stressor

A stressor can be an argument

 

[the]

Should the purpose of argument ultimately be to reach an agreement? Why or why not?

After thinking about this slightly longer I think that for word integrity arguments are trying to convince one party that you are correct and a discussion is something you do as a means to a peaceful end. I'm sure that one can turn into the other.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't know about that

Many a true word has been spoken in arguments

Sometimes people have to have a shift in consciousness before they will speak the truth and that shift of consciousness can come from a stressor

A stressor can be an argument

That relationship seems pretty incidental.

Anyway though, what I mean is that what is true is true and doesn't require an argument. Presentation of fact does not require an argument, nor does it need to be defended with arguments - though it can be defended with corroborating evidence.

Arguments are used when you don't have all the facts, the facts aren't sufficient, or even some times when one has an agenda and the facts are inconvenient.

Or put another way, arguments are not for facts. They're for distilling opinions. When you give facts, you merely say "This is true" but when you give an argument you actually say "That is true, therefore you should do this." or "That is true, therefore this opinion is the correct one."

 

[muir]

That relationship seems pretty incidental.

Anyway though, what I mean is that what is true is true and doesn't require an argument.

You'd think so but apparently not...apparently some people will still argue

Presentation of fact does not require an argument, nor does it need to be defended with arguments - though it can be defended with corroborating evidence.

And then the small minded people attack you instead of what you are saying and then you have an 'argument'

Arguments are used when you don't have all the facts, the facts aren't sufficient, or even some times when one has an agenda and the facts are inconvenient.

Some people just want to piss all over things

Or put another way, arguments are not for facts. They're for distilling opinions. When you give facts, you merely say "This is true" but when you give an argument you actually say "That is true, therefore you should do this." or "That is true, therefore this opinion is the correct one."

Some people don't listen to facts

Some people will even skew their perception of reality...this has been shown by scientific experiment

 

[Delta]

A lot of light has been cast upon discussion, of every single sort there can be, for me by studying psycho-analysis, both the school of thought itself and the better criticisms of it, there is a lot of defensiveness and resistance to insight in much discussion, if not the most of it. I'm not being conceited about this because I have recognised it in myself sometimes, with the decline and disappearence of socialism and all the history associated with that.

I really do believe that the whole of mankind is more rationalising than rational, there is so much which is affect and emotion driven, I am a thinker and prefer that function set but I do think that a lot of cognitivism and other schools of thought exaggerate the extent to which thinking can or does prevail. I also dont think that emoting and unacknowledged affect driven arguments are anything to be necessarily ashamed of, nothing human should be foreign to anyone, but they can be obsticles.

I have been musing on what you said. I don't sustain friendships because people rarely have the capacity to consider where their views originate. I am too sensitive to ignore projections so end up inadvertently answering their subconscious, which can get in the way of friendship. Debating to me is a blown up version of this process, when done online. Irl I have observed politicians with much skill debate but rarely do I get the sense that they mean what they say.

I have concluded that if psychoanalysis was mandatory from an early age, I think people would be in a better position to communicate on a fuller range of topics. Whereas now paranoia and unresolved relationship attachments go unsupported and the 'winner' becomes another shadow in the subconscious.

Overall, I feel that survival in western culture itself has forced a view that a person needs to be right at all costs and I think this belongs to a colonial schema which does not contain empathy. Survival is for many a detached sport and so their communication is of the same light; by and large communication is stunted by their worldview. Then again, I suppose the aim of self actualisation plays too heavily on mind. I am of the mind that Maslows triangle was the wrong way around for some; some begin at the point of self actualisation and so are concerned with the detail of love in all it's manifestations. These are the ones I seek out and feel compelled to discuss rather than argue or debate with. So, I guess that is my lonely bias, which I have accepted x

 

[Nixie]

The cynical part of me says that the purpose is always to ruthlessly crush your opponent whilst simultaneously pretending to piously desire absolute truth and honesty without a single nasty whiff of competition or ego to spoil one''s performance.

 

[Nixie]

Hahaha That's even funnier since I just now glanced through the thread...I posted the above without reading any other posts....

 

[just me]

I think the purpose of argument not to be the point of arguing. Arguments stem from disagreements. To argue is not the same as to discuss. The purpose for discussion is understanding. The value of it, learning. Arguments usually stem from two sets of values that aren't going to change no matter what. If this is the case, then arguing can be useless.

Also, arguing can be a form of offensive use of words to try and tilt things your own way, forcing the other to argue in defense of themselves. Discussion brings about much better outcomes than arguments, as I don't like to see angry people. Most folk cannot argue without showing anger. The ones that can do show a sense of understanding over the ones that cannot; a sense of maturity from experience. The man that corrects his child with a kind face is smart and shows self restraint, but he is really filled with knowledge and understanding. "Be angry and sin not."

 

[Gaze]

Overall, I feel that survival in western culture itself has forced a view that a person needs to be right at all costs and I think this belongs to a colonial schema which does not contain empathy. Survival is for many a detached sport and so their communication is of the same light; by and large communication is stunted by their worldview. Then again, I suppose the aim of self actualisation plays too heavily on mind. I am of the mind that Maslows triangle was the wrong way around for some; some begin at the point of self actualisation and so are concerned with the detail of love in all it's manifestations. These are the ones I seek out and feel compelled to discuss rather than argue or debate with. So, I guess that is my lonely bias, which I have accepted x

Strongly agree. History is often written from the victor's perspective. So, this creates a precedent, that it's those who win and stand alone on the battle field who are remembered, not those who wave peace flags. The goal becomes more about recognition and reputation than reason and truth.

 

[Elegant Winter]

I've learned from and agree with a lot of what's been said. Argument is a form of conflict and conflicts are often approached with a spirit of conquest, domination, etc.

I think it's wise to avoid argument completely. The vast majority won't be receptive to new ideas, anyway. Conversation is preferable. There's less resistance to new ideas and it's actually enjoyable. And there's no risk of being hurt. Usually, anyway.

If an argument is simply unavoidable I think the purpose should be to reach an agreement, however.

 

[Elis]

Personally I think agreeableness can be equally as bad as petty conflicts. Regardless if it stems down to an inherit conflict or not, I think it is important to have arguments. I think communication is key and really, what would happen if we wouldn't challenge "knowledge"?

Sometimes conflict can't be resolved that easily and it might be for the best to agree to disagree, but pretending that conflicts don't exist can severely undermine us.

 

[ZenCat]

Agreement is hogwash - the sole purpose of agreement is to soothe egos. Agreement has nothing to do with truth. Agreement does not make something true and many have agreed about things which aren't true.

Agreement is useful to understand your mutual starting point, but if agreement is the only end of an argument then the argument was pointless.

I can see how this perspective could apply if you're engaged in philosophical or recreational argument.

But if the argument arises as a result of trying to resolve a practical issue like how best to rescue the wounded out from under a collapsed building, or where to concentrate efforts to build a sandbag barricade when an unexpected flash flood threatens to wipe out a village, or whether or not to declare war on another country, then finding common ground or consensus or agreement might come in handy.

 

[sprinkles]

I can see how this perspective could apply if you're engaged in philosophical or recreational argument.

But if the argument arises as a result of trying to resolve a practical issue like how best to rescue the wounded out from under a collapsed building, or where to concentrate efforts to build a sandbag barricade when an unexpected flash flood threatens to wipe out a village, or whether or not to declare war on another country, then finding common ground or consensus or agreement might come in handy.

I suppose, but in a case like that there should be less arguing and more doing. Seriously, there's no time to be petty in a case like that which is why you pretty much just listen to whoever is in charge - you're trusting them to lead for a reason.

With something like that just getting it the fuck done is way more important that arguing about the optimal way to do it.

Edit:
Except for war of course. And even there agreement isn't quite what you're looking for, it's actually the LAST thing you want. "Oh! LET'S NUKE THESE BASTARDS! EVERYONE AGREES!" Yeah sure.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=273]ZenCat[/MENTION]

Moreover when time is essential there's rapidly diminishing returns over delaying with arguments. At some point we must say "I don't need you to agree, I just need you to do."

 

[Gaze]

@ZenCat

Moreover when time is essential there's rapidly diminishing returns over delaying with arguments. At some point we must say "I don't need you to agree, I just need you to do."

But how do you know what to do if you don't have a discussion first? Without the knowledge that comes from prior thought and discussion about the best way to problem solve issues or concerns how we know how to adequately, efficiently, or effectively solve problems? If someone acts without thinking through and discussing the options, that could make a situation worst. Of course, this doesn't we shouldn't act or that we should wait until all options are exhausted before acting or doing, but no discussion before solving could be catastrophic. Hence, the unnecessary casualties of unnecessary wars throughout history.

 

[muir]

I think some people love to stand on a pile of the corpses of their enemies and crow

You can spot them pretty easily...crowing away

They couldn't give a damn about the truth of anything; for them victory is their only 'truth'

 

[sprinkles]

But how do you know what to do if you don't have a discussion first? Without the knowledge that comes from prior thought and discussion about the best way to problem solve issues or concerns how we know how to adequately, efficiently, or effectively solve problems? If someone acts without thinking through and discussing the options, that could make a situation worst. Of course, this doesn't we shouldn't act or that we should wait until all options are exhausted before acting or doing, but no discussion before solving could be catastrophic. Hence, the unnecessary casualties of unnecessary wars throughout history.

First of all, discussion is not quite argument.

Second of all, even when there is a debate it is more about coming to a conclusion about what works the best - which is usually fairly objective within given guidelines - and not about whether everyone merely agrees on it or not. Consensus is a result but it isn't actually the goal. Efficiency is efficiency regardless of who agrees on it.

 

[sprinkles]

I think some people love to stand on a pile of the corpses of their enemies and crow

You can spot them pretty easily...crowing away

They couldn't give a damn about the truth of anything; for them victory is their only 'truth'

While others love to make everyone their enemy and martyr themselves on the pile.

 

[Gaze]

First of all, discussion is not quite argument.

Second of all, even when there is a debate it is more about coming to a conclusion about what works the best - which is usually fairly objective within given guidelines - and not about whether everyone merely agrees on it or not. Consensus is a result but it isn't actually the goal. Efficiency is efficiency regardless of who agrees on it.

But what if there is disagreement on how to problem solve and the discussion progresses to an argument which means someone has to justify why one solution or approach is better than the other, isn't it relevant then?

Edit. Additionally, there have to be some agreement on which approach to take after a discussion and possible argument ensues, so that they know what to actually do/implement.

 

[muir]

While others love to make everyone their enemy and martyr themselves on the pile.

You choose to make yourself my enemy

I'm presenting information and whether or not you can look past me to the information is upto you and your character