Informative Thinking

[cacian]

Should one argue against something or for it?

In simple words:

'I think because I can''
or
''I think because I am''.

'I think because I am' is repetitive.
One, a person, has already established they exist because they have uttered a perfectly adequate grammatical sentence.
By uttering a sentence one has confirmed one exists.
In comparison to a dead person that does not talk therefore is not.

'I think because I am' is the classic dejavu of its time.

[Sydneysider]

Arguments from belief vs arguments from mental exercise?

Hard to judge another's motives or integrity.

I cannot judge between the two. It would depend on the motivation. Which could be anything.

[cacian]

Arguments from belief vs arguments from mental exercise?

Well if one is to argue the existence of god for example, something that is already established as a concept then I think a mental exercise is more worthy then a belief one.
Just because we believe in something does not make it right well at least not necessarily to others.
For the sake of an argument I would perhaps start by confiming the statement or concept to be correct.
I think it would make more sense to do so.
Arguing against it is like the concept of running versus walking.
After running a mile one would stop and go back to walking again there is no way around it.
Walking is what we do naturally running is what we make ourself do like flying.
One would go/start with what one knows first is what I mean.


Hard to judge another's motives or integrity.
I don't get what you mean here.



cannot judge between the two. It would depend on the motivation. Which could be anything.
motivation as in the will to prove something?

[Charles Darnay]

I'm pretty sure you are now repeating your own questions. Has your inanity surpassed you?

[cacian]

I'm pretty sure you are now repeating your own questions. Has your inanity surpassed you?

Maybe but where is the fun in not saying at all?
You do not try you do not get.
Inane to you very saine to me.
It is all about perspectives.

[Rainyhawaii]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to ask here.
Should one argue for the concept of something or against the concept of something?
Should one argue only what they know or anything they can rationalize?
Should one argue for the sake of argument to stay sharp or only what they believe?
Should one argue only for what they believe of what they know/think to be true?
Or something else that I'm still not understanding?

[Buh4Bee]

Eventually, you'll figure this one out for yourself after about 10 more posts. This on-going situation is litnet's best best kept jokes.

[cacian]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to ask here.
Should one argue for the concept of something or against the concept of something?
Should one argue only what they know or anything they can rationalize?
Should one argue for the sake of argument to stay sharp or only what they believe?
Should one argue only for what they believe of what they know/think to be true?
Or something else that I'm still not understanding?

You know at the time when I posted this I was sure I had something in mind. I have now to reread is again to get back to it. Haha.
Forgive me.
''I think because I am'' does not ring right to me because I have ''to be'' before I can do anything and ''to be'' is ''to exist'' and ''to exist'' is to say that you do.
In order word ''you are'' because someone else's present, a witness let say, has established that you are because you told them and they can see that ''you are''. That is the only way.
''I think'' is therefore redundant because if no one was there to establish it then it is futile. ''To think for oneself' is not the same as when ''you tell someone it''. It is a two situation not one way.

The whole idea is that one is dependent on another to be able to be/exist.

[Rainyhawaii]

You know at the time when I posted this I was sure I had something in mind. I have now to reread is again to get back to it. Haha.
Forgive me.
''I think because I am'' does not ring right to me because I have ''to be'' before I can do anything and ''to be'' is ''to exist'' and ''to exist'' is to say that you do.
In order word ''you are'' because someone else's present, a witness let say, has established that you are because you told them and they can see that ''you are''. That is the only way.
''I think'' is therefore redundant because if no one was there to establish it then it is futile. ''To think for oneself' is not the same as when ''you tell someone it''. It is a two situation not one way.

The whole idea is that one is dependent on another to be able to be/exist.

So is it like you are asking: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? But with thinking/existing?

[cacian]

So is it like you are asking: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? But with thinking/existing?

A tree is different.
'If a tree fall' is under condition. This meaning the only time I would establish anything about a tree is to establish it has fallen first or that it has not. Witnessing is needed again.
I have not other way of telling it has or it has not. In order to know it has I have to see it and by seeing then I can establish it has made sound.

[Rainyhawaii]

A tree is different.
'If a tree fall' is under condition. This meaning the only time I would establish anything about a tree is to establish it has fallen first or that it has not. Witnessing is needed again.
I have not other way of telling it has or it has not. In order to know it has I have to see it and by seeing then I can establish it has made sound.

That's the same thing.
If there is someone around to witness the tree falling, then they will inevitably be able to confirm that a sound was made. --> To say "I think because I am." Is redundant for reasons you explained.
However, if there is no one there to confirm that the tree fell then there is no way one could confirm that the tree made a sound. Therefore making it a futile endeavour. --> To say "I think because I can." Is futile because "''I think'' is therefore redundant because if no one was there to establish it then it is futile. ''To think for oneself' is not the same as when ''you tell someone it''."

Either way I don't see how it relates to your original question: "Should one argue against something or for it?" could you please explain this part, perhaps in a different way?

[cacian]

That's the same thing.
If there is someone around to witness the tree falling, then they will inevitably be able to confirm that a sound was made. --> To say "I think because I am." Is redundant for reasons you explained.
However, if there is no one there to confirm that the tree fell then there is no way one could confirm that the tree made a sound. Therefore making it a futile endeavour. --> To say "I think because I can." Is futile because "''I think'' is therefore redundant because if no one was there to establish it then it is futile. ''To think for oneself' is not the same as when ''you tell someone it''."

Either way I don't see how it relates to your original question: "Should one argue against something or for it?" could you please explain this part, perhaps in a different way?

Hi RainyHawaii about the original post.
I asked whether when discussing a subject/topic is it best to discuss it as if to confirm it is/it exists rather then it does not.
If say one doubts they exist or god does not exist is best to tackle it by going forwards with ideas that it does exist rather contradicting it by proving it does not.

[Rainyhawaii]

I see, I see. Thank you for clarifying.

'I think because I can''
or
''I think because I am''.

I was confused because this sounded like another argument. (It works on the same concept, but more as a specific example. I didn't know which you were referring to.)

Well then, we go back to basic logic on this one. I wouldn't try to prove whether something exists the same as I wouldn't try to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't ever actually 'prove' anything. So I would disprove everything else, not the subject matter at hand (if I were to say something does exist). If I were to say something does not exist I would do the same, but if I stumbled across something I can't disprove then I'd say that there is no definitive answer.