Polemics

[bricklayer]

Polemics are to arguments what sports are to wars.

John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty" contains the best defense of antithesis I have ever encountered.

In an argument, the goal is to "win the argument". In other words, the goal of an argument is for one's starting position to be the better position in the end.
In a polemic, the goal is to "win the prize". In other words, the goal of a polemic is for one's ending position to be the better position in the end.
Arguments tend to focus on people. Polemics tend to focus on ideas.

I love a good polemic but shy away from arguments.

 

[Paradoxum]

On Liberty is a good book (too be fair I haven't read all of it), but everyone should read it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've read some of On Liberty, and it was influential on my budding classical liberalism, but I really should get around to reading all of it. As I recall, the book was a mixed blessing. It promoted individualism (which is good), but it did so while promoting atomism (which is bad). Anyway, I should read it all some day.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

In a polemic, the goal is to "win the prize". In other words, the goal of a polemic is for one's ending position to be the better position in the end.

Better than what?

 

[bricklayer]

Better than what?

Better than one's beginning position.

In an argument, one esteems one's beginning position.
In a polemic, one esteems one's ending position.

We, here at CF, do often engage in polemics and disengage from arguments.

 

[DaisyDay]

Polemics are to arguments what sports are to wars.

In what way?

In an argument, the goal is to "win the argument". In other words, the goal of an argument is for one's starting position to be the better position in the end.

Not necessarily. Quite often the goal of an argument is to come to an understanding.

In a polemic, the goal is to "win the prize". In other words, the goal of a polemic is for one's ending position to be the better position in the end.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "polemic".

Arguments tend to focus on people.

Not in my experience.

Polemics tend to focus on ideas.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "polemic".

I love a good polemic but shy away from arguments.

In so far as you don't attack individuals, perhaps, but you do indiscriminately attack groups (sometimes made up of strawmen).

 

[bricklayer]

In what way?

Not necessarily. Quite often the goal of an argument is to come to an understanding.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "polemic".

Not in my experience.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "polemic".


In so far as you don't attack individuals, perhaps, but you do indiscriminately attack groups (sometimes made up of strawmen).

I attack statistical categories, that I did not construct, not people.
I attack-back groups that attack me.

What I mean by a polemic is more of what we try to do here in as much as we want our ending ideas to be our better ideas as opposed to having our starting ideas being the better.

You of them all, DaisyDay, have knocked me down off a high horse more than once, and I am the better for it.

So, to coin an easy distinction between two spirits of argumentation, I employ polemic and argument. It is true that, historically, a polemic has often been more contentious than not even though having a theological connotation. Perhaps, subconsciously, I chose it hoping to redeem it. Anyways, in its traditional context, that's what it should be.

 

[Paradoxum]

I've read some of On Liberty, and it was influential on my budding classical liberalism, but I really should get around to reading all of it. As I recall, the book was a mixed blessing. It promoted individualism (which is good), but it did so while promoting atomism (which is bad). Anyway, I should read it all some day.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think I agree. Mill is good as promoting the value on a personal level, but does so using utilitarianism (which might not be acceptable to some people), and perhaps neglects ideas such as equality and a community spirit.

 

[bricklayer]

I think I agree. Mill is good as promoting the value on a personal level, but does so using utilitarianism (which might not be acceptable to some people), and perhaps neglects ideas such as equality and a community spirit.

In his earlier works, Mill dismisses equality of out comes out right as something that is only achieved "in the graveyard".

 

[Paradoxum]

In his earlier works, Mill dismisses equality of out comes out right as something that is only achieved "in the graveyard".

True equality may never be achieved (or true liberty), but that doesn't mean we can't value equality and try to work towards it in a practical and ethical way.

 

[bricklayer]

True equality may never be achieved (or true liberty), but that doesn't mean we can't value equality and try to work towards it in a practical and ethical way.

I agree; but to gain my sincere participation, it would have to be a purely voluntary effort.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree; but to gain my sincere participation, it would have to be a purely voluntary effort.

What would? Sorry, I don't know what you mean.

 

[bricklayer]

True equality may never be achieved (or true liberty), but that doesn't mean we can't value equality and try to work towards it in a practical and ethical way.

Equal outcomes are not a desirable goal.
I'm all for people "moving up" but not for the purpose of equalizing outcomes.
Nothing good comes from the pursuit of equal outcomes.
Nothing holds more people down than the desire for and the pursuit of equal outcomes.

Nothing can diminish more one's contentment or gratitude than the desire for equal outcomes.
There is no good reason to desire equal outcomes other than concession to envy.

 

[Paradoxum]

Equal outcomes are not a desirable goal.
I'm all for people "moving up" but not for the purpose of equalizing outcomes.
Nothing good comes from the pursuit of equal outcomes.
Nothing holds more people down than the desire for and the pursuit of equal outcomes.

I'm not necessarily in favour of an equal outcome, but I am against thinking humans are autonomous islands.

Nothing can diminish more one's contentment or gratitude than the desire for equal outcomes.
There is no good reason to desire equal outcomes other than concession to envy.

Well it could be argued that people are equal, and therefore there is no reason one person should have more than another. Even the will to hard work is determined by genetics, upbringing, and life experiences. It could be said that being fundamentally against equality of outcome is the product of ignorance or greed.

I don't know if I believe this. It may always be useful for some to earn more than others for motivation.

 

[bricklayer]

I'm not necessarily in favour of an equal outcome, but I am against thinking humans are autonomous islands.



Well it could be argued that people are equal, and therefore there is no reason one person should have more than another. Even the will to hard work is determined by genetics, upbringing, and life experiences. It could be said that being fundamentally against equality of outcome is the product of ignorance or greed.

I don't know if I believe this. It may always be useful for some to earn more than others for motivation.

It's the wrong focus. The focus should be advancing individuals not equalizing them. That's no more than "killing Anderson's goat".

How sad an individual who's own advancement is not sufficient motivation but inequality is.

I not care how much more than me anyone has. God bless them.

If one ever attains to contentment, guard it at all costs.
Don't look at other people's stuff, and contentment with my own stuff is possible.
Don't look at other women, and my wife remains the most beautiful woman in the world.
See how it works?

 

[Paradoxum]

It's the wrong focus. The focus should be advancing individuals not equalizing them. That's no more than "killing Anderson's goat".

I don't want to kill anyone's goat.

I'm more saying: If the system is set up and rigged so that one person has £100, and another £1, perhaps that is unjust. Perhaps it would be more just if one had £90, and the other had £11.

How sad an individual who's own advancement is not sufficient motivation but inequality is.

What?

I not care how much more than me anyone has. God bless them.

If one ever attains to contentment, guard it at all costs.
Don't look at other people's stuff, and contentment with my own stuff is possible.
Don't look at other women, and my wife remains the most beautiful woman in the world.
See how it works?

I don't particular care myself. I don't want to be rich, and I don't mind people having more than me. My problem is with an unjust system that directs all the wealth to a few elite, then who are free to try to pay others as little as possible. My problem is the the wealthiest elite don't earn their money.

I don't want more money myself. I would support the least well off even if it doesn't benefit me. You might think your view is quite moral, but it could be seen as a complete disregard of the least well off, and a disregard of justice.