ancapper Posted April 18, 2018 Posted April 18, 2018 Here's my argument: Arguments that appeal to the emotions of other people are valid arguments. Why? Because they CAN be used to convince people, which is the purpose of an argument. The problem is that Emotional Arguments often violate other clear rules of philosophy, but they can be constructed to actually point to the truth. Thank you for reading, let me know if you have any ideas or comments below.
neeeel Posted April 18, 2018 Posted April 18, 2018 You are redefining what "valid argument" means In logic, a valid argument is one in which "it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false."
barn Posted April 18, 2018 Posted April 18, 2018 Hi @ancapper 11 hours ago, ancapper said: Here's my argument: Arguments that appeal to the emotions of other people are valid arguments. Why? Because they CAN be used to convince people, which is the purpose of an argument. The problem is that Emotional Arguments often violate other clear rules of philosophy, but they can be constructed to actually point to the truth. Thank you for reading, let me know if you have any ideas or comments below. I also asked a similar question before, in a thread called 'pinot'. Perhaps I'm wrong but I see you speak of utilitarianism, where the value of things is established by their utility (pretty straightforward, right?). If we accepted it to be valid for arguments, we wouldn't have to be concerned about lying or other ramifications such as morals because the end justifies the means. No UPB neither. i.e. - I want to get rich because that's how I can support my every financial, materialistic needs. Therefore working hard is okay, stealing too as both have the same result, my only focus. No difference. Asking a bank robber why does he rob banks, he answered: - Because, that's where the money is at! - What do you think about this?
RichardY Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 14 hours ago, ancapper said: Here's my argument: Arguments that appeal to the emotions of other people are valid arguments. Why? Because they CAN be used to convince people, which is the purpose of an argument. The problem is that Emotional Arguments often violate other clear rules of philosophy, but they can be constructed to actually point to the truth. Thank you for reading, let me know if you have any ideas or comments below. I would say arguments which appeal to emotions are valid arguments. However I would say the purpose of the argument is not to convince(means to conquer) people, but to compare to an external standard of truth.
Mole Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 On 4/19/2018 at 4:11 AM, ancapper said: they can be constructed to actually point to the truth If the purpose of an argument is to convince someone. And if convincing someone in an emotional way does not depend on the truthfulness of the argument, then how is an emotional argument at the same time pointing to the truth? It seems like a contradiction to me.
Add984 Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 My 2 cents: my feelings on a matter are irrelevant. Feeling is not a requisite for truth. Arguments that are consistent and valid can be backed by passion and emotion in rhetoric and oratory, but these tools alone do not make for a valid argument.
barn Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 Hi @Add984 36 minutes ago, Add984 said: My 2 cents: my feelings on a matter are irrelevant. Feeling is not a requisite for truth. Arguments that are consistent and valid can be backed by passion and emotion in rhetoric and oratory, but these tools alone do not make for a valid argument. What do you think about this: Emotions can be changed by truths but not the other way around, therefore the most utility emotions have is to reveal our relationship to truths. (truths as in objective standards)
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 Appeals to emotions is just a way of convincing people (rather dishonestly) to believe something. They aren't valid in terms of getting to the truth of a matter, but they can work and that's why they're often used to muddy the waters and seize control of the older parts of the brain.
smarterthanone Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 Try this: Arguments that appeal to the emotions of other people are valid arguments useful. Why? Because they CAN be used to convince people, which is the purpose of an argument. I think you are on to something.
Boss Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 Emotional arguments are most likely "valid" to the one making it. It may or may not be valid to reason and evidence. Like a vegan crying over someone eating meat obviously believes eating meat is wrong. However, the person eating meat doesn't think that is valid. Reason and evidence I would argue doesn't either Now, some people fake their "emotions", when in reality, they dont believe it. So you have to be careful even thinking the "emotional" argument is valid to the one making it. However, if they are truly emotional, I assume the argument is valid to them. You can then present reason and evidence to them to see how they respond. But I would first try to understand why they are emotional first, I feel that is very important as if you don't, you may make them more emotional causing them to believe their invalid argument even stronger. Like a big one I find, is you presenting a valid argument against their claims, subconsciously, shows their loved ones(or whoever got them to believe their argument) lied to them. Which they don't want to believe thus rejecting your valid argument in favor of thinking their loved ones did not lie to them. This is why the left loves when Hollywood/celebrities endorse their ideology, as the fans who sometimes even say they love the celebrity don't want to feel like they are rejecting them. IMO Emotions are the strongest driver for humans. Like when you feel hungry/thirsty you eat or drink, when you feel anger, love, etc that can propel action. When you feel fear, sadness, etc that can halt action. The more you accept reason and evidence, the more your emotions will align with the truth. Emotions can propel you into creating a bridge to help connect you with truth. Emotions can also propel you off one into an abyss"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." - Friedrich Nietzsche Free Will, He who fights with reason, becomes reason, and if thou gaze long into truth, the truth will also gaze into thee
Jsbrads Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 Don’t taze me bro! is an emotional arguement. However we must first deny that the individual was trespassing and violating other people’s freedoms to care for his argument.
RichardY Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 5 hours ago, Jsbrads said: Don’t taze me bro! is an emotional arguement. However we must first deny that the individual was trespassing and violating other people’s freedoms to care for his argument. No it's not, it's a statement. With implied ultimatum. As soon as an interaction reaches that point it's not an argument. At best negotiation could bring about a favourable or neutral resolution. But it's not like a deal, where the participants can walk away. 21 hours ago, Add984 said: My 2 cents: my feelings on a matter are irrelevant. Feeling is not a requisite for truth. Arguments that are consistent and valid can be backed by passion and emotion in rhetoric and oratory, but these tools alone do not make for a valid argument. I say feeling is a requiste for truth. On a base empirical level. Unless someone takes revelation as a given, in which case no need to post. Your first two sentences contradict one another, else why bother posting. The whole "tell me more" that stefan sometimes says. (curiosity). Not the "would you like to know more" ala "Starship Troopers" or Wikipedia.
RichardY Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 @Boss Yeah maybe the person is a psychopath, in which case, probably not going to get very far with appeals to emotion. Though how someone can function with no emotion, perhaps thats not correct,... maybe numbed or non apparent emotion, speculating. I don't agree with the collective sense "we", but thought of that sometimes referenced speech from the Merchant of Venice. Quote Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
Jsbrads Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 Your quote from the Merchant of Venice proves the point. If he is human, if he is like you, then treating different is irrational. Emotional argument is supposed to defeat emotional resistance, not reason. If the alien from Alien came to you and argued the same and you don’t blow out his brains, you are a fool.
Recommended Posts