Philosophers are concerned with convincing others of their arguments, but not in the same way as lawyers, for example. Philosophers must in some way be concerned with convincing others, because otherwise why would they write or discuss anything at all? If philosophers were only concerned about what they themselves thought, they would be satisfied sitting by themselves and never talking to others.
At the same time, philosophers are lovers of knowledge and must therefore be concerned with the truth. Unlike lawyers, whose main goal is to convince others of their point no matter what the cost, philosophers must convince people of their point while at the same time being concerned about truth; they must be very careful not to commit a fallacy.
In the Euthyphro (9c), Socrates says, "they will listen if you show them well." This is a metaphor about the types arguments that philosophers make. In some way, the idea of "showing" is supposed to explain how a philosopher should make an argument. Explain what it would mean to show someone something in an argument. How is this different than other types of "convincing" arguments?
1 comment:
I think to show someone of something in an arguement, is to as detailed and accurately as possible, describe your opinion. If you can accomplish to explain something so precisely, you would convince others of your opinion, without having to use a fallacy.
Lawyers may at times use fallacies to make their point and to encourage a certain point of view, but if one can be persuasive without lying, or being manipulative, they are practicing the respectful approach of Philosophy.
Post a Comment