| ▲ | filoleg 8 months ago | ||||||||||||||||
Agreed, I would not start an argument in favor of 1+1=2, just like I wouldn’t start an argument about sky being blue on a sunny day, because most people would just agree with me. The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new, and I have zero new info on those topics that would go against what most already believe. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 9rx 8 months ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new Exactly. Which is why argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn. Not only does it become boring, but it encroaches on the time you have to broach subjects you want to learn about, so there is great incentive to move on for that reason as well. But when you are in a state where you still feel there is something left to learn, where you might drum up an argument to continue to learn and explore, you're not going to make a mind. That would be nonsensical. So the idea of argument changing your mind isn't practical, even if theoretically possible. During argument, there is no mind to change. Once a mind is made, argument ceases (fake argument with ulterior motives aside). | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||