M
Mybrokenlessthenthree
Guest
Withinan argument there are multiple variables that one must take intoperspective. For it is when we are faced with the question ofdefining a good argument, we must first understand what an argumentis in it’s most basic form. The search engine Google will define anargument as, “Anexchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angryone.” Etymology, also according to Google, will tell us that theword argument derived from the latin word arguere, which means tomake clear, prove or accuse. Instantaneously, we can logicallyconclude that we have multiple definition and choices of opinions asto what a good argument consists of.
Inour non-cosmic frame of reference one is lead to conclude that it isvery challenging to fully comprehend any argument. However, when weattempt to understand what argument is in it’s true form, welogically arrive at the conclusion that argumentation with stubbornconservative viewpoints is useless. Because, if we argue with are ownviewpoints and our own opinions, then we no longer have a logicalbased argument but an opinionated argument. When we have suchopinionated arguments, we tend to be dogmatic. For, all we know aboutthe topic is our opinion about how or what the truth should be. Forexample let’s say that someone was to come up to me and say, “Airdoes not taste good, and anyone who believes air does taste good isjust...”, Firstly, any conversation on this topic earns me nobeneficial knowledge or intelligence. Does air tasting good matter inany possible way? If we have an eternal mindset, then any argumentsuch as this one is pointless. However, if someone comes to me andsays, “Starting a fire with kerosene is better than lighterfulid.”,then they have an actual factual argument and not an opinionatedstatement, such as, “Well, kerosene is better than lighter-fluid,because it’s endorsed by Under-Armor and...”. If they have afactual argument, then I would say that it was a good argument.However, if they went off on a non-factual rant for their claim, thenthat argument is useless. We would be only arguing over opinions,which only matters to the person with said opinion that their opinionis correct.Therefore, argument should be to promote our intelligenceon the subject upon which we are conversing over.
Itwas ThomasJeffersonwhoonce said, “Itis my rule never to take a side in any part in the quarrels ofothers, nor to inquire into them. I generally presume them to flowfrom the indulgence of too much passion on both sides, & alwaysfind that each party thinks all the wrong was in his adversary. Thesebickerings, which are always useless, embitter human life more thanany other cause...”Fromthe light that this axiomatic statement brings into perspective aboutan argument, we can conclude with logical deduction, is a matter ofperception. For example, it is my perception of whether or not saidargument is worth my time. A good argument could be arguing over adress, if it is the person who’s arguing perspective. It is not myperspective, so I believe that that is a useless argument. Therefore, it is not the contents of the argument but theperception we have on said argument.
However,within are egotistical arguments we find that we don’t actuallyseek to enlighten ourselves through arguments, but we we seek tocorrect the others with whom we argue. When have such a prideful viewof “we are correct” and “we are right”, you have a world fullof chiefs and no native americans. What is the point of arguing withpeople who will not listen or arguing people who believe that are ofa higher status than you? You can speak words but they will just fallupon deaf ears, so why waste your words? Therefore, an argumentshouldn’t be an attack on the opposition, which is motivatedtypically to correct others, but it should simply be a logical,non-emotional, and equal, exchange of words, thoughts or ideas.
Furthermore, are audacious arguments that we broadcast on nationaltelevision are not true arguments but facade of non-controlledebullition. These fallacious impetuous arguments go on day throughday and foment a society not knowing the full use of it’s lexicon. I can speak with a silver tongue, however if I do not have theintelligence to comprehend the meaning of the words I say, then Ispeak jargon and my argument is pointless. You wouldn’t want toargue with a three year old, or someone who is lacking intelligence,because that conversation is not going to go anywhere. Therefore, ourarguments should be with people of intelligence and not fools, but weall have different perspectives about what intelligence means.Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a vast amount of argumentswe see everyday are simply non-relevant uninteligent bursts ofuncontrolled emotion. If are arguments to do not improve, then theyare simply jargon; words to fall upon deaf ears. We must firstcomprehend the meaning of an argument and understand the motivationwe have and use for said argument.
Conclusion,defining a good argument is impossible, because you have aninfinite amount of correct answers, for it is all a matter ofperspective of the individual who attempts to answer the saidquestion. Therefore, logically, a good argument would be onemotivated to be a conversation based on the purpose of gainingintelligence. One might say, “A debate”. However, if argumentsare nothing but the portrayal of are animalistic uncontrollableemotions, such as, “That dress was so horrid.” “That dress wasso beautiful!”, then you have a prolonged discussion about sizesand materials. Yes this can be an argument, however it is not a ‘goodargument’ by any measure, for it is not furthering the intellect of the human engaged in said argument. Therefore, a good argumentis one that furthers human intelligence.
Inour non-cosmic frame of reference one is lead to conclude that it isvery challenging to fully comprehend any argument. However, when weattempt to understand what argument is in it’s true form, welogically arrive at the conclusion that argumentation with stubbornconservative viewpoints is useless. Because, if we argue with are ownviewpoints and our own opinions, then we no longer have a logicalbased argument but an opinionated argument. When we have suchopinionated arguments, we tend to be dogmatic. For, all we know aboutthe topic is our opinion about how or what the truth should be. Forexample let’s say that someone was to come up to me and say, “Airdoes not taste good, and anyone who believes air does taste good isjust...”, Firstly, any conversation on this topic earns me nobeneficial knowledge or intelligence. Does air tasting good matter inany possible way? If we have an eternal mindset, then any argumentsuch as this one is pointless. However, if someone comes to me andsays, “Starting a fire with kerosene is better than lighterfulid.”,then they have an actual factual argument and not an opinionatedstatement, such as, “Well, kerosene is better than lighter-fluid,because it’s endorsed by Under-Armor and...”. If they have afactual argument, then I would say that it was a good argument.However, if they went off on a non-factual rant for their claim, thenthat argument is useless. We would be only arguing over opinions,which only matters to the person with said opinion that their opinionis correct.Therefore, argument should be to promote our intelligenceon the subject upon which we are conversing over.
Itwas ThomasJeffersonwhoonce said, “Itis my rule never to take a side in any part in the quarrels ofothers, nor to inquire into them. I generally presume them to flowfrom the indulgence of too much passion on both sides, & alwaysfind that each party thinks all the wrong was in his adversary. Thesebickerings, which are always useless, embitter human life more thanany other cause...”Fromthe light that this axiomatic statement brings into perspective aboutan argument, we can conclude with logical deduction, is a matter ofperception. For example, it is my perception of whether or not saidargument is worth my time. A good argument could be arguing over adress, if it is the person who’s arguing perspective. It is not myperspective, so I believe that that is a useless argument. Therefore, it is not the contents of the argument but theperception we have on said argument.
However,within are egotistical arguments we find that we don’t actuallyseek to enlighten ourselves through arguments, but we we seek tocorrect the others with whom we argue. When have such a prideful viewof “we are correct” and “we are right”, you have a world fullof chiefs and no native americans. What is the point of arguing withpeople who will not listen or arguing people who believe that are ofa higher status than you? You can speak words but they will just fallupon deaf ears, so why waste your words? Therefore, an argumentshouldn’t be an attack on the opposition, which is motivatedtypically to correct others, but it should simply be a logical,non-emotional, and equal, exchange of words, thoughts or ideas.
Furthermore, are audacious arguments that we broadcast on nationaltelevision are not true arguments but facade of non-controlledebullition. These fallacious impetuous arguments go on day throughday and foment a society not knowing the full use of it’s lexicon. I can speak with a silver tongue, however if I do not have theintelligence to comprehend the meaning of the words I say, then Ispeak jargon and my argument is pointless. You wouldn’t want toargue with a three year old, or someone who is lacking intelligence,because that conversation is not going to go anywhere. Therefore, ourarguments should be with people of intelligence and not fools, but weall have different perspectives about what intelligence means.Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a vast amount of argumentswe see everyday are simply non-relevant uninteligent bursts ofuncontrolled emotion. If are arguments to do not improve, then theyare simply jargon; words to fall upon deaf ears. We must firstcomprehend the meaning of an argument and understand the motivationwe have and use for said argument.
Conclusion,defining a good argument is impossible, because you have aninfinite amount of correct answers, for it is all a matter ofperspective of the individual who attempts to answer the saidquestion. Therefore, logically, a good argument would be onemotivated to be a conversation based on the purpose of gainingintelligence. One might say, “A debate”. However, if argumentsare nothing but the portrayal of are animalistic uncontrollableemotions, such as, “That dress was so horrid.” “That dress wasso beautiful!”, then you have a prolonged discussion about sizesand materials. Yes this can be an argument, however it is not a ‘goodargument’ by any measure, for it is not furthering the intellect of the human engaged in said argument. Therefore, a good argumentis one that furthers human intelligence.