/lit/ - Literature

>>3551302
B. I could re examine my position and end up with a new, possibly more mature outlook on life.

>>3551302

To be clear about the canceling. If I choose A that means I don't gain any new wisdom, and if I choose B that means I lose the argument.

This a 'lady or the tiger' kind of question.

B, anytime all the time.

That is the point of arguing. Listening comes first and reflecting upon the arguments.

>>3551318
Still B, if a discover new truth of wisdom? What have I lost? Losing an argument in exchange for a new wisdom IS winning.

there's nothing worse than arguing with someone who just doesnt want to lose, no matter how wrong they are. In the end both people end up losing

>>3551325
>Losing an argument in exchange for a new wisdom IS winning
truth!

>>3551309
>>3551318
>>3551325

So, you're willing to choose wisdom at the cost of being on the losing side of an argument (the embarrassing side of an argument)?

Do we practice that daily? It's crucial that you be honest with yourself here. What if A were changed to being right or correct in an arguement? (the canceling mechanic would still apply)

>>3551372
It's not that shameful to lose an argument. There is no need to be bitter or salty. If you're position was wrong, then now you learned about another position which may be better. If you're position was right, but you lost because of a lack of skill in arguing, then you now know it would be a good idea to improve those skills so you can win the next one. If someone wins an argument and continues being a belligerent asshole to the loser, then that just shows their lack of class and respect for the debate.

>>3551372
>>3551387
I'd add as well that one who denies B because of A is just going to look like a slimey shit.

>>3551372
Hardly, there are many times that my pride comes in the way. But I think you always need to be aware of that. To go in with curiosity and ready ears instead of knowing that the other person is wrong even before he has opened his mouth.

kill everyone in this thread

>>>/sci/
>>>/x/
>>>/hm/

The child chooses (a), the adult (b).

B.
If you are wrong, you should dare to admit it.
Gaining new wisdom, a new truth or insight is the entire point of any discussion.

I never lose arguments and I'd rather keep it like this.

If you are in an argument and the outcome for you is position A, doesn't that mean you already had the truth/wisdom in the first place?

Remember choosing one would make the other IMPOSSIBLE. This is for intensifying the dilemma. That means any kind of 'winning' or satisfaction would not be there. Yes, you would be more wise if you chose B. But it would also mean you'd be unable to feel any sense of accomplishment. It would be impossible to feel as if you 'won' anything. Try thinking about that like discovering an extremely disturbing truth, something that disgusts you ultimately. It is as if you discovered wisdom, but at the cost of never being able to be proud of that discovery.

Playing the Devil's advocate here. Would you really choose wisdom over well being always? That can't possibly be the right choice in all cases, could it?

>>3551516
Dude fuck off already with your shitty thread.

B. It's what the real purpose of a discussion is. Of course no one ever understands that and instead decides that "winning" is the purpose, which is where we get most logical fallacies.

>>3551516

>implying satisfaction through conquest isn't barbaric

what if choosing B means I'm wrong about it all

The responses are disappointing, and a bit hypocritical.

While B seems to be the one that everyone wants, it's disappointing because the reasons stated are really short and view gaining wisdom as a kind of 'winning'--as if to negate the consequences of being on the wrong side of an argument. Which leads one to suspect that the choice of B isn't an honest choice, or the question was perceived hastily in terms of loss and gain.

Think about this: If gaining wisdom is the better virtue and is always bettering ourselves, rather than protecting one's own well being or making sure one is always objectively correct, that would entail a common habit of wrestling for truth on a daily bases, even in the face of being wrong about something we hold compassionately. That would mean we *should* strive everyday to find wisdom, even in the face of constantly being deeply wrong. Are we really advocating that here? It looks as if we're just choosing B because it seems like it would make us feel like winners. That sounds a lot like A. Isn't this a bit odd to the whole nature of the question? Are we truly saying B to sound right when we really want A most of the time?

Side Question:
If it is true, that choosing B is the right answer, and we know that with deep conviction, then why does that seem not to be the case for some of the philosophy threads that frequent /lit/?

>>3551302
I don't feel like no either outcome is possible in any sort of argument, because truth and wisdom are subjective constructs. And winning an argument could only happen in some pre-, artificial parameters, making it basically meaningless...

>>3552931
you might want to rephrase that. It doesn't sound strong nor makes sense.

>>3552977
Truth is subjective, yeah? So an argument is just two people with different truths thinking that the other is an idiot. Neither, if they actually believe what they are arguing about will ever be convinced of the other's version of the truth in all it's intricacies. The only way to determine a winner in an argument is by setting down beforehand some sort of parameters for judging the strongest argument, like in debating. But these are artificial parameters and do not actually exist.

And any new insight or wisdom that one person "learns" from the other will just be filtered through their lens of perception and made to fit in with all of their standing beliefs and opinions.

>>3551302
It really depends on the argument.
In my school, I've been typecast as the stuck-up know-it-all pseudointellectual who thinks he knows everything but is really a retarded faggot.

If I'm arguing with one of those people who think that of me, I'd rather be right, 100%.

But if I'm arguing with strangers over the Internet, for example, I'd rather gain wisdom. After all, as the old saying goes, Internet arguments are like the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded. I'd like to get a little less retarded every day.

>>3553011
>Truth is subjective,

Come on now.

>>3552874
>If it is true, that choosing B is the right answer, and we know that with deep conviction, then why does that seem not to be the case for some of the philosophy threads that frequent /lit/?
Because the fantasy hypothetical you started this thread with has no basis in reality.

Plenty of people will go along losing arguments and not gaining any wisdom from said loss. Plenty of people will win arguments and gain wisdom from the debate anyway.

Unlike in your retarded hypothetical, gaining wisdom from an argument and winning an argument are not mutually exclusive in the least.

>>3552874
>why does that seem not to be the case here?

Because people say B and then go out and do A.

>>3553011
>Truth is subjective
As a math major, I cannot emphasize enough:
>THAT IS BULLSHIT
>THAT IS BULLSHIT
>THAT IS BULLSHIT
2+2, in the Arabic Base-10 counting system, will ALWAYS equal 4. If someone says otherwise, they are WRONG. The same applies for all of math, as well as a good chunk of science and engineering. End of discussion.

There are certain things I value above wisdom, but being right is not one of them.

>>3553099
It isn't?

>>3553120
>2+2 equals 4, always
I actually used this exact same example to disprove someone who claimed that truth is subjective a while ago.

>>3553125

Of course not. Different perceptions =/= different truths. To say that truth is subjective implies that truth only exists within human perception. It doesn't. If you believe with all your heart that 2+2=5, it still won't. You'll put two apples together and end up with four, and stare at them, confused as to why they aren't five. 2+2=4, always.

>>3553110
See
>>3553104
You can't perform either option, because it's a fucking hypothetical not rooted in reality at all.

>>3553125
See
>>3553120
And
>>3553127
>>3553138
But you gotta make sure you mention that we're using the Arabic Base-10 counting system.
Otherwise, some smartass will come along saying 2+2 could equal 10 in Base-3.
Or worse, some idiot could say that the symbol "2" in some BS counting system would be equal to our 8.
Always make sure there's no room for loopholes.

>>3553146
>>3553104

I think that OP was more getting at asking why people value winning an argument more than gaining new insight.

>>3553162
90% of arguments will never give anyone "new insight."

Many arguments are equivalent to people who say "2+5=10" and then others respond with "2+5=7" until eventually either the person who said 10 realizes their mistake, or the person who said 7 gives up trying to fix the pigheaded guy who said 10.

Of course, you could construe that as the two sides to literally any debate you may participate in, where you're the 7 trying to fix the stubborn 10. Said example only applies to arguments that are based on facts. If you can't realize whether your arguments are based on opinions and not facts (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, CHRISTFAGS AND ATHEISTS), then you have the maturity of an underageb& newfag.

And as I said earlier:
>Plenty of people will go along losing arguments and not gaining any wisdom from said loss.
>Plenty of people will win arguments and gain wisdom from the debate anyway.
>Unlike in your retarded hypothetical, gaining wisdom from an argument and winning an argument are not mutually exclusive in the least.

So you can continue trying to win an argument without letting it get in the way of gaining wisdom. Of course, many people don't (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AGAIN, CHRISTFAGS AND ATHEISTS), but it's possible.

If I'm actually right, A. Otherwise, B.

I probably prefer the experience of A more than B, but if I'm wrong, I'd rather find out sooner rather than later.

Discovery. Has heppened to me before (personal discoveries) and not being right all the time isnt the end of the world

>>3553120
Maths =/= Reality

>>3553138
>If you believe with all your heart that 2+2=5, it still won't

Yes it will, in the mind of the person who believes it. Just not in yours.

>>3553104
>>3553146
>hypothetical not rooted in reality

The question is an ethics question, it implies an aporetic quality. It's designed to not have a clear resolution. It's design not to give a supposed prediction to our motives in an argument, there is nothing hypothetical about it. Rather, the question is design to DRAW ATTENTION to our motives about truth seeking. What's more important fact or values, or are they too intertwined to separate? Do we seek truth in it's purist from or do we seek it in its most pragmatic form? Do we seek truths for security or for wisdom? What do those motivations entail?

In other words, the question is meant to induce a pause and incite personal reflection on your nature of truth seeking. The possibility of the question's dilemma every really happening is irrelevant. And to try and figure a finite solution would be missing the point, all together

>>3553120
you must not be far along in that Math degree. Yes truth is not subjective in math, but that is because math is a formal system, where truth can be objective. In the "real world," you cannot prove things; there is no Truth.

> as well as a good chunk of science and engineering
uh, no

>>3553473
Maths and science are unveiling reality, though.

>>3553120
whenever i see someone declaring that truth is objective, it's usually just a lack of imagination at work
>2+2 ALWAYS EQUALS 4
yeah, there you go. like people can't fathom that there could conceivably exist other forms of logic and math

I would choose A and the reason why isn't because im stubborn. I am very happy with my outlook on life right now, i don't wish to gain to gain new truth because for the first time i am not looking for any. I have found the perfect amount of knowledge appropiate for this time in my life. Of course this harmonic pensiveness will only last so long, but for the time being i'm content. Once I start feeling lost again I'd choose option be, but i'm chillen right now.

B

learning new things, especially brand new things, gets my boner rising.

>>3553603
>this is what STEM actually believes

>>3553639
>Philosophy students are just jelly that they suck green donkey cock at science and maths

that;s not a philosophy student

>>3553603
>>3553639
I'd agree with it, if he dropped the mystical overtone. Math and science help us understand, model, and predict reality. Not really the same as "unveiling" it.

>>3553643
please, explain to me how math is 'unveiling' 'reality'

better yet, define 'unveil' and 'reality'

If that is a philosophical question this is a literature board.

>>3553603
But the thing-in-itself can never be known!

>>3553603
Let me precise - Math and Science further unveil something already disclosed.

>>3553680
fuck off, bach

>>3553694
fuck off, heidegger

>>3553709
i mean mozart

I would choose to kill OP for his underage faggotry.

>>3551302

making the purpose of discourse about 'winning' naturally makes the actual subject of discourse transitory and inconsequential, insecurities very much detract from useful and positive interaction.

i mean fuck, you learn this (or should learn this) in elementary school, the sentiments that make people get offended at bullying and teasing are the same that derive satisfaction from bullying and teasing, and they help neither party get along well with life.


tl;dr, stop trying to rationalize your weakness op.

>>3551387

I totally agree. Losing an argument can often be more enlightening than winning an argument.

>>3553618
>because im stubborn.

but you sound stoic. Wanting not too little knowledge to starve your happiness, and not too much to worry it. But how long can this Goldilocks behavior keep things up? Where will you go when the Three Bears come *home* in the form of an unwanted truth about your own self?

>>3553199
>90% of arguments will never give anyone "new insight."

ITT I'm bitter from not getting people to support my perceptions

B since knowledge is infinite

B because fuck pride.

I think it was in Pascal Bruckner's Bitter Moon where the character ends by saying: there are victories which lead you into a dead end, and defeats which open new paths.

Hi, I'm >>3553120
Allow me to tear all your arguments (and you) new assholes.

>>3553473
That may be true, but it has no bearing on my argument. You're strawmaning, bad. My argument is that truth is objective, not reality. And in the Arabic Base-10 system of counting, 2+2=4 will ALWAYS be a true statement. Your statement of math not being equal to reality has JACK SHIT to do with my argument.

>>3553550
Absolutely nothing you said rebuts the original argument (that you can try to win an argument and try to gain wisdom at the same time). Truth seeking, facts vs. values, and the other pseudointellectual buzzwords you threw into your post not only don't have any basis within the argument you're trying to rebut, but also have practically nothing to do with the hypothetical you posted.
>Truth Seeking: The hypothetical isn't about seeking truth at all. It's about whether you want what you say to always be right in an argument at the cost of being foolish, or always be wrong and become wiser. You said so yourself in the thread.
>Facts vs. Values: Facts have nothing to do with the hypothetical. No matter what option you choose, reality is unchanged. Whether you're actually right or wrong in the argument, you'd always be right or wrong, depending on what you chose. I could argue all day with option A that you have a 12-inch dick and everyone will think I'm right, but it wouldn't change the 2-inch chode you're packing. (If it would actually alter reality, then I apologize for arguing and change to Option A.) Also, although values do have some relevance, it wouldn't be a trade-off with facts. Stop throwing around buzzwords; they're not seasoning, and if you think they are, then go somewhere bad writing is appreciated. Or maybe >>>/ck/
I could go on, but post limits. I'll make another post.

>>3555894
>And in the Arabic Base-10 system of counting, 2+2=4 will ALWAYS be a true statement.

"Welcome to planet earth, human. Unfortunately, despite it looking three dimensional to you, we are actually in a non-euclidean five dimensional reality that looks like pic related. We tried your 2+2=4 as an axiom, but every attempt at empirical observation meant that items we were using for reference, like 2 cats = 2 cats, turned out to be completely false as there are a variable amount of particles spanning along additional dimensions that you, with your tiny human mind, can't observe. Here in reality 2 is never 2. Also, despite you thinking you are here, you are actually a simulation of a brain created by us. You can't remember it, but the language you're using is entirely your creation, and these bizarre semantic symbols that you call numbers are only truly comprehensible to you. We have our best researchers trying to understand your perceived 'map' of reality though."

In a screaming match? A.

If I was actually having a civil discussion? B.

>>3555894
Ha ha ha you think you're smart... but you're actually just young and very stupid. Classic mistake.

>>3553592
>you must not be far along in that Math degree.
That has nothing to do with my arguments. That's equivalent to name-calling, the lowest form of argument possible.
I may not be far along with that degree, but I don't believe that has anything to do with my intelligence or the relevance of my argument. >Yes truth is not subjective in math
HEY, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT, THE GUY YOU ACCUSE OF LACKING KNOWLEDGE OF MATH IS RIGHT. Why am I not surprised?
>but that is because math is a formal system, where truth can be objective.
That is a very true statement.
>In the "real world," you cannot prove things; there is no Truth.
That is not a very true statement. The laws of physics would like a word with you. Humans have proved, via many different experiments and observations, that certain things are without a doubt true. For example, objects on Earth automatically fall down due to gravity.
>> as well as a good chunk of science and engineering
>uh, no
Let's remember that you said truth could be objective in math because it's a "formal system." Do you think the scientific method, and the many fields of study that follow it, are not a formal system? Just about every scientist/engineer/mathematician would think less of you if you said that to them.
All observations in science (methane burns if heated enough with oxygen available; bacteria with genes that thrive in a certain environment will eventually overtake bacteria that don't have those genes in that environment, unless a new gene is introduced even better than the first; I could go on) are completely true, because they are OBSERVED. Also, most of said observations are corroborated with math, which, as you agreed, is objectively true. The same applies even more for engineering fields, since they're mostly applying math to real life.
You're probably thinking I mean things like theories of evolution and are objectively true. I know they're not. That's why I specifically said "a good chunk" and not "all."

>>3555928
>The laws of physics would like a word with you.
Oh, sweet jesus. You're not seriously holding up the laws of physics –hypothetical Models of reality – as an example of objective truth?

>>3553615
Did you even read my post? You're retarded. That's not what I said. I said, and I quote:
>2+2, in the Arabic Base-10 counting system, will ALWAYS equal 4.
See the bottom of >>3553146 for why you're stupid.

>>3553639
>>3553643
Both of you are creating generalizations of segments of the population and trivializing them based on one lone post. That's really rude. Stereotyping is rude. Only niggers do it.
inb4 someone doesn't get the joke

>>3554208
I see you didn't read the example of what I meant that I kindly provided THE NEXT FUCKING LINE DOWN.

Here's another example of your average argument.
Person A cuts in front of Person B in line. Person B points out this oversight to person A. A insists they were always in front of B. Thus, <argument>.

That's not giving anyone any new insight on anything, beyond showing B that A is a jackass and A that B is observant. And that's not really "insight" so much as "basic inferences based on observations of reality."

>>3555900
The aliens in your hypothetical ARE NOT USING THE ARABIC BASE-10 COUNTING SYSTEM. At least, they're trying, but they're not using it correctly.
Therefore, your hypothetical proves nothing, other than you don't know what I mean when I say "the Arabic Base-10 counting system."

>>3555916
Firstly, I'd like to say that one of the main ways of dealing with things is projection onto another person (or post, for that matter). It's quite likely that you're an underageb& faggot and I'm at least a decade older than you.
I'd also like to learn what my "classic mistake" was.

>>3555941
You keep thinking of the "why" aspect of the laws of physics, not the "what" aspect. The "why" is very much a hypothetical model. We only have guesses as to why matter attracts other matter, or why objects in motion stay in motion. We do, however, know those statements as objectively true observations of the world.

I want nothing to do with this thread. It's stupid, and I have better things to do.

WOW

I do believe we have an A choice in our presence.

As wild as they are, the Anon draws attention to something interesting.

When we choose to not lose in an argument or recede from showing any reconciliation, how and why do we do so? What is it that usually throws us off to take on a stubborn attitude of "I'm right,"?

>>3556024
>other than you don't know what I mean when I say "the Arabic Base-10 counting system."
Congratulations for failing to get the first part of that hypothetical. The second part just tells you why you cant have consensus on your 'objective system'.

B

Choosing A just makes you an asshole.

>>3555928

woah, hold your horses, kid, think critically for a moment

>Let's remember that you said truth could be objective in math because it's a "formal system."
Truth can be objective in math because it is a formal system, like logic, where there are axioms and defined relations. Hence, "truth" is what is valid within the system. That is why you can have mathematical PROOFS and logical proofs, because you manipulate the symbols and theorems derived from the axioms to deduce something. Since this robust notion of "proof" is only possible in a formal system, objective truth exists only there -- not in science.

>Do you think the scientific method, and the many fields of study that follow it, are not a formal system?
No, they are not "formal systems" (for the reasons I gave above). Moreover, the "scientific method" is not a hard-and-fast thing, but merely a set of ideal guidelines, principles a posteriori in themselves. What I mean is, they were dreamed up after-the-fact, as it were, to describe things that natural philosophers were already doing, that is, experimentation. Here's more on that if you are feeling inclined to dispute (check myth 4): http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf

>Just about every scientist/engineer/mathematician would think less of you if you said that to them.
I am a scientist and mathematician. You are just being puerile, using the same argument against me that you claimed I used against you: "That's equivalent to name-calling, the lowest form of argument possible." I was not calling you any names, just remarking on that it seemed you were not (yet) far in your studies. After you've done real/complex analysis, the illusion that mathematics is a perfect model of reality, or somehow "unveils" reality, should dissipate.

Math is a language that describes only what is capable given its axioms. We can use it to help understand reality, but not all of reality is understandable through mathematics.

>>3555928
I'll also add that you should read some philosophy of science to get a better grounding, because
>completely true, because they are observed
is patently false

A good starting place would be Hume (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, fourth section through the end). At the very least read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>>3556104
I'm surrounded by assholes!

NO NO NO NO... NO
There are many flaws in your question. You are making a lot of assumptions, this is leading to people conflicting with themselves in answering it.

>A. The position of NOT losing the argument
If I was right, I should not lose the argument. By being presented with a false argument against my truthful argument I can gain a better understanding of my argument. Better understanding = wisdom.
>B. A discovery of some new truth, or wisdom.
I could lose an argument and gain misinformation.
Both sides of an argument could be wrong.

I reject your Question and demand a better one.

>>3555894
>That may be true, but it has no bearing on my argument. You're strawmaning, bad. My argument is that truth is objective, not reality. And in the Arabic Base-10 system of counting, 2+2=4 will ALWAYS be a true statement. Your statement of math not being equal to reality has JACK SHIT to do with my argument.

Then "truth" could refer to any 'fact obtained from contrived man-made parameters of rationality, like mathematics.

>>3556024
>>3553120
I don't know why an alleged "math major" would think the phrase "in the Arabic base ten counting system" would change anything. You're surely aware that many clocks are also "in the Arabic base ten counting system", but still have crap like "12+2=2"

I'd choose B, but only if the other party clearly had a well reasoned point that held truth and wisdom as the question states. I like to consider myself open minded, but I'm also skeptical, so a weak argument on a valid point is not enough to sway me.

>>3556419
Clocks use modular arithmetic.

Discovery of truth and wisdom, no doubt. I hate being wrong but I can accept it. The whole point of debate should not be to decide a winner but for both parties to learn and understand.

>>3555900
>Aliens advanced enough to simulate the mind can't understand the concept of a number
>Maths requires empirical justification
>You can not find an entity using the aliens form of perception which would be an equivalent for 'one'.

All these questionable implications.

A of course. I don't need to learn anything if I'm already correct.