I'm not sure I understand your point. ARe you saying there is no point in discussing anything, and attempting to say what you think is true with reasons is some sort of signof moral or spiritual or psychological deficiency? Sounds like.
Just FYI, my business is "winning arguments," that is, presenting reasons to courts that will persuade them to do things they I want for my clients. Sometimes it works.
Maybe your point is Humean, that we are moved by passion not reason, and that in fact reason never gives us any reason to do anything. Or anyway fails to motivate. Perhaps so, and generally thsi may be the case. But if you take this to an extreme there is no point in non rhetorical discussion whatsoever. Do you really think so?
For my part, I have been persuaded by a handful of arguments in my life. One about the existence of singular causality (never mind), therefore the falsity of the D-N model of explanation (also never mind). I was persuaded by Hayek about the needs to abolish markets and by Marx about the needs for the working class to abolish classes. I was persuaded by experience and history that liberalism, was a good idea and that Marxism was obsolete. I once persuaded a student that her argument abortion was fallacious. This aware rare, though.
I disagree with ou about afanatics. They are the most ferorious debaters in my experience. SOme of us, perhaps less certain,like to discuss because we hope we might learn things. Maybe you are not in that group.
--- Tom Walker <timework at telus.net> wrote:
> Justin wrote,
>
> >Wojtek wrote,
> >/ > Marx, being a closet Aristotelian, assumed that
> />/ economic essence i.e. value
> />/ > resides in things themselves
> /
> >Zero for two, Woj,
>
>
> Two for two, Just. The interesting thing here is
> that you and I, who
> disagree about the utlility of value theory (or was
> it the value of
> utility theory?), can agree that John B. upholds an
> argument of Marx's
> that is not Marx's and that Wojtek criticizes an
> argument of Marx's that
> is also not Marx's. This leaves open the possibility
> that even if we are
> correct in our interpretation on this point, we may
> be wrong with regard
> to some other part of what we think Marx wrote
> and/or meant.
>
> A thought that I had in the sauna this morning is
> that fanaticism is a
> symptom primarily of doubt. If we're confident of
> the correctness of our
> view, there's no great urgency to win an argument
> about it. It's only
> when we're anxious that we need the reassurance of
> defeating other
> views. The problem is, you can never win an
> argument. Has anyone here
> ever won an argument? Please tell me about it
> because I don't think it
> can happen.
>
> The Sandwichman
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com