[MD] Misunderstandings are driven by what we value not by the logic we use.

[David Harding]

>> [Ron sez]
>> I believe what is being refered to is informal logic, in other words meaning. Logic is traditionaly a tool contributing to the 
>> ability to dissect arguments and avoid the deceptions of deceitful rhetoric. DmB is essentially saying that Marsha is
>> Intellectualy deceitful, she does not engage in an intellectual discussion but indulges in a selfish mission to win an arguement 
>> using any means no matter how contradictory or out of context. 
>> 
>> Granted, one may only reason with those who are willing to be reasoned with, but, part of engaging in Philosophy is
>> nurturing the love of wisdom. Simply getting off on winning arguements really is not part of that endeavor, as RMP
>> rails against. It's not a chess game or a duel and as you point out it's about your motives and your values but as
>> DmB points out, if you value winning over the clarification of thoughts then perhaps a philosophy forum, particularly
>> this one, is not the place for you. This forum is dedicated to the clarification of Bob Pirsigs thoughts not Marsha's
>> her values or anyone elses.
>> 
>> Understanding someones values may explain their motives, intellectual deceitfulness and dishonosty but that offers
>> nothing within the context inwhich this forum is dedicated to.
> 
> djh responds:
> I disagree.  As mentioned to dmb - *huge* chunks of Lila (most of the book) - would never be written if we spend no time understanding folks values.  What people value - what's a good life - living a good life - that's the whole point of philosophy.  
>  
> {Ron retorts}
> We ARE talking about folks values, their intellectual values. The aim of living a good life is developing sound critical thinking skills
> and that includes clarity and precision in thought and discussion. We can have a good discussion if you want to explore what
> it means to "live a good life". I suspect what this discussion is turning towards is exactly this topic and I think it would clarify
> things alot to make this a thread subject and dialecticly expand on it. Dialectics is a whole nother matter which I'd like to
> pursue and I'll do that in my next comment below.

[djh responds to the retort]
Right - we are talking intellectual values - but there is more to folks than their intellectual values and we can happily be intellectual talking about those values too..  If we neglect folks other values then we aren't getting the full picture - particularly if folks (such as Marsha) value DQ which is higher than intellectual quality in the code of Art.

>> djh responds to dmb:
>> To translate a misunderstanding into a 'strawman' is sinister as it presumes ill intentions of the person who misunderstood.  That's all well and good to casually throw around such wild emotive alligations - if your goal is the truth - but what if your goal is what's good? Is it good to accuse someone of bad intentions when bad intentions are very rarely the cause of disagreements in intellectual discussions?  This just speaks to my larger point about values and dialectical discussions.  Speak to folks values - then you'll change their mind and things will get better - but not before..
>> 
>> [Ron sez]
>> If the true is the highest good, in this case, bad intentions (arguement with the goal of winning) indeed are the root of the disagreement.
>> The goal is not to persuade those who do not wish to be persuaded, the goal is to persuade and reason with those who are willing
>> to be persuaded and reasoned with. If you are an ego climber with an inferiority complex and superiority is your aim then you are not
>> interested in logic, truth and clarity in meaning.
>> To be clear, the criticism of the rhetorical device of the strawman is to dismiss an explanation without addressing the content.
>> To translate or otherwise rhetorically paint an arguement as a strawman that indeed does address and criticize the content
>> is to use the term dishonostly or without understanding of the meaning of the term. In this case Dmb is indeed justified in the
>> use of this term because it does directly point to the context of the criticism.
> 
> 
> djh responds:
> The goal of winning isn't the problem with dialectic(though it does come with the territory).  The problem with dialectic is that it has truth as its goal at the expense of quality.  Truth isn't meant to be before what's good. Dialectic(Socrates) puts it there and in the process neglects the values of the interlocutors.  It is a very rare case when someone has ill intentions  - by neglecting values however - dialectic has no trouble with assuming that ill intentions are par for the course.
> 
> A strawman is more than a failure to address content.  A strawman is the accusation that you are making an argument appear weaker than it actually is.  As I explained to dmb - just about any misunderstanding could be classified as a strawman..
> 
> {Ron sez:}
> And all I'm saying is that its more than simply misunderstanding its a willingness to be clear and precise, that includes taking the time
> to really understand the topic of conversation. Do the homework, care enough to make a legitimate well informed criticism of the content.
> Aim for excellence.
>  

[djh responds]
Oh absolutely Ron. I agree with those values 100%.  But simply saying that someone *isn't* doing those things is rarely going to help or change anything.  If folks don't value those things there must be a reason why.  The MOQ beautifully provides us with a language with which we can discuss, in awesome detail, why.

> Ron continues:
> Having said that, lets talk dialectic.
>  
> The goal of dialectic was, and still is to philosophic minds, to reach aporia. It is a critial thinking skill that orginated in Elea that
> was taught to Socrates by Protagoras I believe, I could be wrong, but the point is that it was a method to gain clarity and precision
> by logically reducing prejudices and assumptions by argueing to the best of your abilites, both sides of an arguement. Even though
> all your values stand pro to one side of the disagreement. It was a call to unbiasly consider both sides of an arguement with equal
> consideration. It aims at the highest quality, and that is the true, the highest value, the highest good.
> Read the Socratic dialogs, it goes on and on about what is best and that is to aim at precision and clarity in all that you do, its what
> it means to be honost socially, healthy biologicaly and wise intellectually its what it means to aim for excellence.

[djh responds]

I think you've made a few mistakes here firstly...

Aporia:
"Aporia or aporeia (Ancient Greek: ἀπορɛία: impasse; lack of resources; puzzlement; doubt; confusion) denotes in philosophy a philosophical puzzle or state of puzzlement and in rhetoric a rhetorically useful expression of doubt...The separation of aporia into its two morphemes a- and poros (‘without’ and ‘passage’) reveals the word’s rich etymological background"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia

and secondly…

"[Protagoras] followed the Ionian tradition that distinguishes the School of Abdera. The distinctive note of this tradition is criticism, a systematic discussion that can be identified as "presocratic dialectic"..The main contribution of Protagoras was perhaps his method of finding a better argument by discarding the less viable one. This is known as "Antilogies", and consists of two premises; the first is "Before any uncertainty two opposite theses can validly be confronted", the second is its complement: the need to "strengthen the weaker argument".. Protagoras knew that the less appealing argument could hide the best answer, which is why he stated that it was constantly necessary to strengthen the weakest argument. Having been born before Socrates himself, this progressive viewpoint in the development of consensual truth could conceivably have contributed to the progressive styles of many of the other great minds which followed him. His most recent defender is Joseph Margolis, especially in the latter's The Truth About Relativism (Blackwell's, 1991)."

http://protagoras.askdefine.com/

So from these two pieces of information - if they are correct - we can conclude that aporia is about doubt - not the goal of a dialectical argument.   Secondly - the sophist Protagoras emphasised the importance of intellectually examining an argument which we deem 'weak' in order to reveal any hidden quality.  I think there is an important distinction between this type of 'dialectic' and the one we know all too well today - advocated by Plato.  Protagoras dialectic focus is on quality - not truth.. Plato however - emphasised truth over quality..

"[Phaedrus] eventually comes to the view that Plato's hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle in which the reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the reality of the True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in a huge struggle for the future mind of man. Truth won, the Good lost, and that is why today we have so little difficulty accepting the reality of truth and so much difficulty accepting the reality of Quality, even though there is no more agreement in one area than in the other." (ZMM Chap 29)

Historically(thanks to Plato and Socrates) - good and truth are in opposition - the reason why Plato goes on and on about what is best isn't because he recognises that truth should be metaphysically below good - but because he wants to place good *below* truth… 

"Plato's second synthesis is the incorporation of the Sophists' areté into this dichotomy of Ideas and Appearance. He gives it the position of highest honor, subordinate only to Truth itself and the method by which Truth is arrived at, the dialectic. But in his attempt to unite the Good and the True by making the Good the highest Idea of all, Plato is nevertheless usurping areté's place with dialectically determined truth. Once the Good has been contained as a dialectical idea it is no trouble for another philosopher to come along and show by dialectical methods that areté, the Good, can be more advantageously demoted to a lower position within a "true" order of things, more compatible with the inner workings of dialectic. Such a philosopher was not long in coming. His name was Aristotle."

> [Ron said finally]
> The straw man is employed by those unwilling to care enough about the conversation to make a well informed criticism.
> It's sloppy intellectually its low quality.
> The straw man accusation, which is what you are talking about, is accusing someone of not taking the time to make a well
> informed criticism  and rejecting the other persons views out of prejudical bias rather than reasoned, well informed clear 
> explanation.
>  
> And If we look at the archives....I believe I would not be hard pressed to find an armful of examples to support this accusation.

[djh responds]
Are there times when folks don't care enough about their interloctor or their discussion to make a well informed criticism? Absolutely.  But more important than the fact that there may be someone not addressing a criticism - is the question of *why* they're not addressing the criticism.  What do they value which is blinding them to a criticism?  Are those values any good?  Could they be better? How?  If intellectual values truly are better than social or biological one's then what is it that is causing them to appear intellectually lazy like this?  Accusing someone of a 'straw man' does very little in answering any of these questions.