Maverick Philosopher

Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

Reader Requests Advice re: Learning Basics of Philosophical Argumentation

A New Zealand reader writes,
 
I was hoping if you are able to provide me with some guidance regarding where to begin learning the basics of philosophical arguments. I’ve been trying to understand how to evaluate political and theological debates for awhile, but despite my interest I often find them go away over my head. I found your Substack a couple of weeks ago and was delighted to find your articles not only quite easy to follow but made plenty of sense. So I thought why not give it a try and ask you for help in getting better critical thinking. It would be wonderful if you are able to help with this.
 
Many thanks,
Cameron
 
I am happy to be of assistance, Cameron. Jay F. Rosenberg's The Practice of Philosophy: A Handbook for Beginners comes to mind.
 
Your question has been put to me before. Here is a post from 2011 in which I make a few other suggestions. You will also find the comment thread to that post useful.
 
If anyone wants to help Cameron in his quest, comments are enabled below.
 

Posted

in

, , , ,

by

Bill Vallicella

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “Reader Requests Advice re: Learning Basics of Philosophical Argumentation”

  1. Dmitri Avatar
    Dmitri

    I suggest the following two books. I’d go with the first one to begin with.
    This book covers key philosophical arguments for the layman and it is divided into sections according to disciplines such as Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysics etc:
    https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Just_the_Arguments/lm5HEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bruce,+barbone+arguments&printsec=frontcover
    The same authors and one more followed up with a book that exposes fallacies
    https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Bad_Arguments/j_lmDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bruce,+barbone+arguments&printsec=frontcover
    Both books deal with Western philosophy only.

    Reply
  2. Dominik Kowalski Avatar
    Dominik Kowalski

    The method I’ve been following is to try to think from the bottom up. What are the entailments if the materialist is correct and there are just the arrangements of the elemental particles? What becomes impossible on such a view? What if the theist is correct? And what are the answers on worldview X, where neither are? This doesn’t get you the details, but a bare-bone structure that is enough to detect inconsistencies in proposals concerning certain features of a worldview. Trying to think an ontology to its logical conclusion, materialism probably being the easiest one in that regard, is what trains philosophical argumentation as well.
    I’ll frankly admit that this approach isn’t all-encompassing. I don’t think it is useful or will yield any kind of insight and evaluative skills in “higher” debates like models of epistemology or debates in the philosophy of language. But I think it’s sufficient for all philosophical areas that touch our everyday practice and thinking.

    Reply
  3. BV Avatar
    BV

    Thanks, Dmitri.

    Reply
  4. BV Avatar
    BV

    Dominik,
    Your method is a good one. Suppose materialism is true. What becomes impossible on such a view?
    The truth of materialism!
    For if the whole of reality is exhausted by the particles and fields in spacetime that current physics tells us about, then there is no ‘room’ for truth-bearers, entities capable of being either true or false. For no truth-bearer is a material item.
    So, if materialism is true, then it is not true. And if if it is not true, then it is not true. Therefore, necessarily, materialism is not true. What is not true is false. Therefore, necessarily materialism is false.
    Are there the makings of a good argument here? As you appreciate, I have merely sketched the argument, without plugging all of the argumentative gaps.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to BV Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *