STOP ARGUING!!
I cannot count the number of times that my mother would shout “STOP ARGUING!†at one or more of my siblings and I.
Years later I learned that ‘argument’ had more meaning than was contained in those youthful experiences.
I obtained an engineering degree and then later studied philosophies before I learned the much broader and important meaning of the word ‘argue’. When I studied “Logic 101â€, in philosophy class, my worldview expanded significantly. I did not realize until later that this expansion of my worldview was to change my life completely.
It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.
Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.
We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling†often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?
Metaphors We Live By, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.
“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.â€â€”Lakoff and Johnson
Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.
This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.
This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.
What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.
Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?
Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?
Is this why most replies are negative?
Another way that argument resembles war is that both in war and in arguments there is a great deal of bluff and bluster with little intellectual activity.
Stop arguing!!
Stop arguing!!
An argument, by its very nature, is a 'battle' - a verbal battle, but a battle none the less.
A discussion, however, is quite different. It is 'points of view' between two or more people containing opinions by each person which may differ one from another and possibly each person endeavouring to persuade the others to agree with that person's point of view. This can also be classified as a 'debate'.
Discussions are more civilised than arguments, although sometimes discussions can degenerate into arguments, if the adrenalin starts to rise. This can be the same for debates of course.
I, personally, prefer the discussion - it is far more constructive.
However, I must confess that I can and do enjoy a good argument when the mood takes me, or if I feel 100% in the right and can back up my argument with solid evidence, and if I feel that it is important enough for me to prove the point I am arguing about.
A discussion, however, is quite different. It is 'points of view' between two or more people containing opinions by each person which may differ one from another and possibly each person endeavouring to persuade the others to agree with that person's point of view. This can also be classified as a 'debate'.
Discussions are more civilised than arguments, although sometimes discussions can degenerate into arguments, if the adrenalin starts to rise. This can be the same for debates of course.
I, personally, prefer the discussion - it is far more constructive.
However, I must confess that I can and do enjoy a good argument when the mood takes me, or if I feel 100% in the right and can back up my argument with solid evidence, and if I feel that it is important enough for me to prove the point I am arguing about.
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
Stop arguing!!
Throughout our life we constantly make judgments about such abstract matters as difference, importance, difficulty, and morality, and we have subjective experiences such as affection, desire, love, intimacy and achievement. SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims that the manner in which we conceptualize and reason about these matters are determined, to one extinct or another, by sensorimotor domains of experience. SGCS claims that, in many cases, early experiences of normal mundane manipulations of objects become the prototypes from which these later concrete and abstract judgments are made.
“When we conceptualize understanding an idea (subjective experience) in terms of grasping an object (sensorimotor experience) and failing to understand an idea as having it go right by us or over our heads†we are using a sensorimotor experience as the metaphor for the subjective experience. The metaphor ‘understand is grasp’ results from our conflating a sensorimotor happening with a later subjective experience.
Metaphor is a standard means we have of understanding an unknown by association with a known. When we analyze the metaphor ‘bad is stinky’ we will find: we are making a subjective judgment wherein the olfactory sensation becomes the source of the judgment. ‘This movie stinks’ is a subjective judgment and it is made in this manner because a sensorimotor experience is the structure for making this judgment.
Why is the premise “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points†self-evident. It is because this is one of the first things an infant learns and it is verified and reinforced constantly throughout life by our sensorimotor experiences. The metaphor ‘more is up’ is not so pervasive in our experience but its rationale is similar.
If we recognize metaphor as a means to associate something new with something old, something known with something unknown, we can begin to understand what SGCS is proposing in this revolutionary theory. SGCS is presenting a theory based upon empirical evidence gathered by the combined effort of linguists, philosophers, and neural physicists that metaphor is a very necessary element of our ability to reason as we do.
We normally think of metaphor as a tool of language whereby one can enlighten another by making an association of an unknown with a known. SGCS is making a much more radical use of metaphor.
SGCS is claiming that the neural structure of sensorimotor experience is mapped onto the mental space for another experience that is not sensorimotor but subjective and that this neural mapping, which is unconscious and automatic, serves as part of the “DNA†of the subjective experience. The sensorimotor experience serves the role of an axiom for the subjective experience.
“When we conceptualize understanding an idea (subjective experience) in terms of grasping an object (sensorimotor experience) and failing to understand an idea as having it go right by us or over our heads†we are using a sensorimotor experience as the metaphor for the subjective experience. The metaphor ‘understand is grasp’ results from our conflating a sensorimotor happening with a later subjective experience.
Metaphor is a standard means we have of understanding an unknown by association with a known. When we analyze the metaphor ‘bad is stinky’ we will find: we are making a subjective judgment wherein the olfactory sensation becomes the source of the judgment. ‘This movie stinks’ is a subjective judgment and it is made in this manner because a sensorimotor experience is the structure for making this judgment.
Why is the premise “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points†self-evident. It is because this is one of the first things an infant learns and it is verified and reinforced constantly throughout life by our sensorimotor experiences. The metaphor ‘more is up’ is not so pervasive in our experience but its rationale is similar.
If we recognize metaphor as a means to associate something new with something old, something known with something unknown, we can begin to understand what SGCS is proposing in this revolutionary theory. SGCS is presenting a theory based upon empirical evidence gathered by the combined effort of linguists, philosophers, and neural physicists that metaphor is a very necessary element of our ability to reason as we do.
We normally think of metaphor as a tool of language whereby one can enlighten another by making an association of an unknown with a known. SGCS is making a much more radical use of metaphor.
SGCS is claiming that the neural structure of sensorimotor experience is mapped onto the mental space for another experience that is not sensorimotor but subjective and that this neural mapping, which is unconscious and automatic, serves as part of the “DNA†of the subjective experience. The sensorimotor experience serves the role of an axiom for the subjective experience.