Arguments are rarely ever about the subject being debated anyway. They're usually about the underlying emotions and attachment issues of the participants.
In conflicts people do not give a damn if you are right. They will do everything necessary to win. They care only if you are ready to affirm and execute your will.
It isn't arguing that is weak, it is arguing over trivial matters. Argue about important things, like trying to convince a suicidal person that there are reasons to live.
Never try to argue a person out of a desire to end their life. That's the absolute wrong time to apply rational arguments or try to browbeat someone into a will to live. They don't want to end their lives due to faulty logic. It's about how they feel about life. How they relate to it, and how they don't feel seen.
@ there sure are, I’d go as far as to say most people are trying to win. It is Kind of like how there are people that are looking to beat you on a sport court, and arent there to gently toss the ball back and forth for the fun of it. The act of rhetoric is definitionally predicated on changing someone’s mind. There is a win state on the table baked into the description of the activity. Being exposed to enthusiastic attempts to have success in the process is only exhausting if you haven’t really thought through your position, or you are emotionally invested in it. If you have already attacked every aspect of your idea and hold all ideas to be intrinsically absurd, nobody can exhaust you. The best they can do is start calling you names at that point, which is equally ridiculous, and by extension humorous. It seems to me that those who get exhausted at having their position attacked with intent to actually change that person’s mind are the ones not having an exchange in good faith. People take themselves and their ideas way too seriously. We are all just dumb tribal apes basing all of our arguments on the foundation that our senses can be trusted and the world is material.
That’s an interesting perspective, and I see where you’re coming from. Rhetoric does have a competitive aspect, but I think the ultimate goal depends on the participants. Some people approach it as a game to "win," while others see it as a chance to refine their ideas or find common ground. As for exhaustion, I’d argue it’s not always about emotional investment or poor preparation. Sometimes it’s just the sheer effort of engaging with someone who argues in bad faith or refuses to acknowledge nuance. Humor can be a great defense, but there’s also value in taking ideas seriously-maybe not *ourselves*, but at least the process of seeking truth. After all, even if we’re just tribal apes, our ability to reason is one of the better things we’ve got going.er things we’ve got going.
@@VIGOUR-DEP first paragraph, ya this is entirely accurate and fair. Just as there are those who just want to hit a golf ball while drinking beer and there are those who approach golf like a job. How you approach the conversation drives your expectations. I get this point, but to me thats like playing golf with someone that cheats. (Im going to abuse this metaphor to death, lol). There are two rational things to do when playing with a cheater. Admit its a game and join in with the absurdity, or stop playing with that person. Either way I dont find golf cheaters worth stressing over. Its only really a problem if there is something on the line, like a bet or a tournament. Likewise fallacious and emotionally driven arguments aren’t going to convince me a person is a good debater, but I rarely have any stake on the line in such circumstances. Generally if there are stakes, there are arbiters. I just find it takes two to argue, and the socratic method tends to work really well on obnoxious people. Most will end up uninviting themselves from the conversation after a series of questions in response to their statements. You keep the ball in their court until they foul or quit. Regarding reason. I was watching alex conner and another philosophy tube guy discuss reason and how an atheistic worldview tends to argue against reason as being trustworthy. Evolutionary processes don’t necessarily tend towards truth. I tend towards a diestic, if functionally atheistic worldview (both guys discussing the topic are atheist). Ive been thinking about the EAAN since then. Is our ability to reason one of the better things about us? Sure, it gave us medicine and rocket ships, but its also behind all the carnage we cause to the biosphere, and it certainly hasnt guided us towards any improved enlightenment over the last several thousand years. It has caused a massive increase in our population though, as would be expected by an evolutionary process. How do we know reason is not just our biology pursuing the exact same end goal that all biology has pursued for billions of years? Ie, expansion of the genotype at nearly any cost.
@@TypexviiibYou raise an interesting point-reason is a double-edged sword. It’s true that evolution doesn’t prioritize truth, just what works for survival and reproduction. Our reasoning might just be a tool for expanding our reach, not uncovering deeper meaning. But even if reason is imperfect or biologically biased, it’s still the best tool we have for understanding and improving our world. It’s given us medicine, technology, and the ability to reflect on our actions. The challenge is to direct reason toward something higher than mere survival-toward wisdom, responsibility, and perhaps even restraint. Whether we’re capable of that as a species remains an open question.
I think arguing is for the strong, just like architect who builds something extraordinary, while people without argumented believes are crumbling buildings with shaky scaffolding
I don't think one should particularly care what this guy said. He was quite extreme in his views, very critical. I don't think he offered a positive model to emulate. Being obsessed with his views is probably a sign of immaturity and self-centeredness.
Maybe I’m missing something, but he is wrong on this one. It is not weak, it is a care towards what is true. Unless the “arguing” is not a discussion and rather a blunt force of claims that are never really checked but only desired to be reinforced, then yes, it is weak. However, if it is a discussion or debate meant to drive further investigation, to find truth and hopefully agreement, then it is not weak. By assuming you have the truth, you are letting yourself be flawed and forever flawed. Some may argue because they do believe they have the truth, and they want others to agree so that they too can be in the right and know what they know. Of course, without a willingness to consider that they themselves maybe wrong instead of the other or both be wrong, then it is flawed as well. You can strong and foolish, which is dangerous. You can weak and foolish, which is can be a problem, but can often times just be nuisance. Or you can strong and wise. Being willing to have a discussion, to have a conversation, talk, and so on, allows for growth. Wisdom. I would choose to be strong and wise rather than strong and foolish.
That's the point, arguing over trivial matters is what I consider a waste of time. Discussing the truth is challenging, and if you find someone genuinely interested in such debates, they are the RIGHT ONES TO ARGUE WITH, since most people who try to discuss the truth end up isolated.
So, Nietszche is wrong here. Logic is the superior value of humanity and at least in the ancient years, it was essential to argue like Socrates. Nowadays, it seems that the western world is diminishing this value. Frivolous and trivial emotionality prevails in many cases and this is an obvious decline. And finally, it is unrealistic to believe that everyone will be strong but, it is quite realistic to aim that our society will value rationality over emotionality
@@VIGOUR-DEP I partially agree but, it depends from the people that you are dealing with. Therefore, it is not simple to answer with a simple chat here. You have just opened a long discussion and it is not efficient to continue such a thing from here
I do not see Socrates questioning as an argument but more of two people seeking knowledge. All he knows is that he knows nothing. That is the starting point.
In one German leader cabinet was Nietzsches bust. They not think they just lead, but maybe if they stop and think all that industry not war atrocities perpetuated by leaders but rivers trout disappearing in Germany due to chemical manufacturing activity, trout very sensitive to water pollution. Nobody say that instinct (gut felling) is not important, but gut feeling is personal, if we apply single person gut feeling to all nations actions it will lead to disaster of massive proportions.
Arguments are rarely ever about the subject being debated anyway. They're usually about the underlying emotions and attachment issues of the participants.
exactly, they might hate you, so they will find argument as an opportunity to shout on you.
In conflicts people do not give a damn if you are right. They will do everything necessary to win. They care only if you are ready to affirm and execute your will.
in conflicts, just let them feel they win the argument. But in fact the winner is always the one who know exactly where his energy and time go.
@@VIGOUR-DEPI like this perspective.
He makes a strong argument
HE RULES
DAMN STRAIGHT FRED
It isn't arguing that is weak, it is arguing over trivial matters. Argue about important things, like trying to convince a suicidal person that there are reasons to live.
Never try to argue a person out of a desire to end their life. That's the absolute wrong time to apply rational arguments or try to browbeat someone into a will to live. They don't want to end their lives due to faulty logic. It's about how they feel about life. How they relate to it, and how they don't feel seen.
I CALL HIM FRED
If an enthusiastic conversation with someone with a different point of view than you is exhausting, youre weak
there are kind of people who look for beating you not to argue.
@ there sure are, I’d go as far as to say most people are trying to win. It is Kind of like how there are people that are looking to beat you on a sport court, and arent there to gently toss the ball back and forth for the fun of it. The act of rhetoric is definitionally predicated on changing someone’s mind. There is a win state on the table baked into the description of the activity.
Being exposed to enthusiastic attempts to have success in the process is only exhausting if you haven’t really thought through your position, or you are emotionally invested in it. If you have already attacked every aspect of your idea and hold all ideas to be intrinsically absurd, nobody can exhaust you. The best they can do is start calling you names at that point, which is equally ridiculous, and by extension humorous. It seems to me that those who get exhausted at having their position attacked with intent to actually change that person’s mind are the ones not having an exchange in good faith. People take themselves and their ideas way too seriously. We are all just dumb tribal apes basing all of our arguments on the foundation that our senses can be trusted and the world is material.
That’s an interesting perspective, and I see where you’re coming from. Rhetoric does have a competitive aspect, but I think the ultimate goal depends on the participants. Some people approach it as a game to "win," while others see it as a chance to refine their ideas or find common ground.
As for exhaustion, I’d argue it’s not always about emotional investment or poor preparation. Sometimes it’s just the sheer effort of engaging with someone who argues in bad faith or refuses to acknowledge nuance. Humor can be a great defense, but there’s also value in taking ideas seriously-maybe not *ourselves*, but at least the process of seeking truth. After all, even if we’re just tribal apes, our ability to reason is one of the better things we’ve got going.er things we’ve got going.
@@VIGOUR-DEP first paragraph, ya this is entirely accurate and fair. Just as there are those who just want to hit a golf ball while drinking beer and there are those who approach golf like a job. How you approach the conversation drives your expectations.
I get this point, but to me thats like playing golf with someone that cheats. (Im going to abuse this metaphor to death, lol). There are two rational things to do when playing with a cheater. Admit its a game and join in with the absurdity, or stop playing with that person. Either way I dont find golf cheaters worth stressing over. Its only really a problem if there is something on the line, like a bet or a tournament. Likewise fallacious and emotionally driven arguments aren’t going to convince me a person is a good debater, but I rarely have any stake on the line in such circumstances. Generally if there are stakes, there are arbiters. I just find it takes two to argue, and the socratic method tends to work really well on obnoxious people. Most will end up uninviting themselves from the conversation after a series of questions in response to their statements. You keep the ball in their court until they foul or quit.
Regarding reason. I was watching alex conner and another philosophy tube guy discuss reason and how an atheistic worldview tends to argue against reason as being trustworthy. Evolutionary processes don’t necessarily tend towards truth. I tend towards a diestic, if functionally atheistic worldview (both guys discussing the topic are atheist). Ive been thinking about the EAAN since then. Is our ability to reason one of the better things about us? Sure, it gave us medicine and rocket ships, but its also behind all the carnage we cause to the biosphere, and it certainly hasnt guided us towards any improved enlightenment over the last several thousand years. It has caused a massive increase in our population though, as would be expected by an evolutionary process. How do we know reason is not just our biology pursuing the exact same end goal that all biology has pursued for billions of years? Ie, expansion of the genotype at nearly any cost.
@@TypexviiibYou raise an interesting point-reason is a double-edged sword. It’s true that evolution doesn’t prioritize truth, just what works for survival and reproduction. Our reasoning might just be a tool for expanding our reach, not uncovering deeper meaning. But even if reason is imperfect or biologically biased, it’s still the best tool we have for understanding and improving our world. It’s given us medicine, technology, and the ability to reflect on our actions. The challenge is to direct reason toward something higher than mere survival-toward wisdom, responsibility, and perhaps even restraint. Whether we’re capable of that as a species remains an open question.
I think arguing is for the strong, just like architect who builds something extraordinary, while people without argumented believes are crumbling buildings with shaky scaffolding
That's the meaning of the video, once the argument turns as a crumbling building then it's pointless.
Sounds like you're writing a long essay to say arguing is pointless, sounds like arguing for me.
you're right.
that's your take away from it poopy pants
I don't think one should particularly care what this guy said. He was quite extreme in his views, very critical. I don't think he offered a positive model to emulate. Being obsessed with his views is probably a sign of immaturity and self-centeredness.
Maybe I’m missing something, but he is wrong on this one. It is not weak, it is a care towards what is true. Unless the “arguing” is not a discussion and rather a blunt force of claims that are never really checked but only desired to be reinforced, then yes, it is weak. However, if it is a discussion or debate meant to drive further investigation, to find truth and hopefully agreement, then it is not weak.
By assuming you have the truth, you are letting yourself be flawed and forever flawed.
Some may argue because they do believe they have the truth, and they want others to agree so that they too can be in the right and know what they know. Of course, without a willingness to consider that they themselves maybe wrong instead of the other or both be wrong, then it is flawed as well.
You can strong and foolish, which is dangerous. You can weak and foolish, which is can be a problem, but can often times just be nuisance.
Or you can strong and wise.
Being willing to have a discussion, to have a conversation, talk, and so on, allows for growth. Wisdom.
I would choose to be strong and wise rather than strong and foolish.
That's the point, arguing over trivial matters is what I consider a waste of time. Discussing the truth is challenging, and if you find someone genuinely interested in such debates, they are the RIGHT ONES TO ARGUE WITH, since most people who try to discuss the truth end up isolated.
So, Nietszche is wrong here.
Logic is the superior value of humanity and at least in the ancient years, it was essential to argue like Socrates.
Nowadays, it seems that the western world is diminishing this value. Frivolous and trivial emotionality prevails in many cases and this is an obvious decline.
And finally, it is unrealistic to believe that everyone will be strong but, it is quite realistic to aim that our society will value rationality over emotionality
The question is: Will everyone argue like Socrates?
@VIGOUR-DEP
No, you must understand WHEN to argue like Socrates, at least nowadays which are much different than those of Socrates
I will argue in my own way not Socrates, but only when I make sure that whom I am arguing with aware of what he talking about.
@@VIGOUR-DEP I partially agree but, it depends from the people that you are dealing with. Therefore, it is not simple to answer with a simple chat here. You have just opened a long discussion and it is not efficient to continue such a thing from here
@@georgioskaraiskakis2725 every perspective is appreciated, therefor I opened the discussion to exchange unique insight.
I do not see Socrates questioning as an argument but more of two people seeking knowledge. All he knows is that he knows nothing. That is the starting point.
Maybe he was just bad at it or mostly picked the wrong side... 😁
A wrong side?
In one German leader cabinet was Nietzsches bust. They not think they just lead, but maybe if they stop and think all that industry not war atrocities perpetuated by leaders but rivers trout disappearing in Germany due to chemical manufacturing activity, trout very sensitive to water pollution. Nobody say that instinct (gut felling) is not important, but gut feeling is personal, if we apply single person gut feeling to all nations actions it will lead to disaster of massive proportions.
If I told you you're right, it means you have no right.
My way of responding to any stupid argument.
@VIGOUR-DEP 100% True