http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/01.17/99-nozick.html
Philosopher Nozick dies at 63 University professor was major intellectual figure of 20th century By Ken Gewertz, Gazette Staff
====================
"Children think an argument involves raised voices, anger, negative emotion...But a philosophical argument isn't like that--is it?
"Why are philosophers intent on forcing others to believe things? Is that a nice way to behave toward someone? I think we cannot improve people that way--the means frustrate the end...
"So don't look here for a knockdown argument that there is something wrong with knockdown arguments, for the knockdown argument to end all knockdown arguing. It will not do to argue you into the conclusion, even in order to reduce the total amount of presentation of argument. Nor may I hint that I possess the knockdown argument yet will not present it.
"Mightn't there be a legitimate use of argument, in self-defense against argumentative bludgeoning by others? Could one wield arguments to attack the other person's position, but only after he has attacked your own--intellectual karate in response to his initiating argument? Alternatively, arguments might be used solely to disarm an attacker. Deftly, the force of the assault could be diverted or even turned against the attacker--intellectual judo or aikido. Perhaps others could thus be defended from the onslaught of third parties, though it would be difficult to bring our argumentative defense to their attention without thereby subjecting them to coercion from *our* arguments. For one's own protection it should not be necessary to argue at all, merely to note publicly what bludgeoning the others are attempting--intellectual satyagraha, to use Ghandi's term for non-violent resistance." [Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations]
RIP indeed,
Ian