How to Argue - Philosophical Reasoning: Crash Course Philosophy #2
TLDRIn this Crash Course Philosophy episode, the importance of rationality as a defining human trait is explored, contrasting it with irrational behaviors. The script delves into the art of argumentation, highlighting the difference between everyday persuasion and philosophical reasoning. It introduces Plato's tripartite soul concept and the significance of reason over emotion and desire. Furthermore, it explains deductive arguments, emphasizing the necessity of sound premises for valid reasoning, using the barber paradox to illustrate logical consistency. The episode encourages mastering argumentation to enhance persuasive abilities and critical thinking.
Takeaways
- π Aristotle described humans as 'the rational animal', emphasizing rationality as a distinguishing human characteristic.
- π£οΈ People often engage in arguments in daily life, but may not approach them with the same rigor as philosophers.
- π§ Plato's concept of a tripartite soul includes the rational, spirited, and appetitive parts, suggesting that the rational part should ideally govern the others.
- π The appetitive part of the soul is shared with animals and drives basic desires like eating and self-preservation.
- π€ Philosophers believe that reason should guide human actions, and that good reasoning can be tested through thought experiments and puzzles.
- π‘ Bertrand Russell's barber paradox illustrates the logical inconsistencies that can arise when a group's definition does not include itself.
- π Deductive arguments are a type of reasoning where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
- π In deductive reasoning, the relationship between premises and conclusion is called entailment, where the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
- β Invalid arguments may have true premises and conclusions but fail to establish a logical connection between them.
- π Validity in arguments refers to the logical structure where if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false, but this does not guarantee the truth of the premises themselves.
- π The goal in philosophical reasoning is to achieve sound arguments, where the premises are true and the argument is valid, ensuring the conclusion is necessarily true.
Q & A
What did Aristotle describe humans as?
-Aristotle described humans as 'the rational animal,' emphasizing that rationality is the distinguishing characteristic that sets humans apart from other animals.
Why is rationality considered important in arguments?
-Rationality is important in arguments because it allows people to be persuaded by logical reasoning rather than just emotional reactions or loud assertions, making the arguments more convincing and persuasive.
What is the tripartite soul according to Plato?
-The tripartite soul, as described by Plato, consists of three parts: the rational or logical part, the spirited part, and the appetitive part. The rational part seeks truth and is swayed by facts and arguments, the spirited part is about emotions and actions, and the appetitive part drives physical desires and self-preservation.
How does Plato view the best human beings?
-Plato believed that the best human beings are those who are ruled by the rational part of their soul, as it keeps the spirited and appetitive parts in check, leading to a more balanced and virtuous life.
What is the barber paradox presented by Bertrand Russell?
-The barber paradox is a thought experiment where a town has a barber who shaves all men who do not shave themselves and does not shave those who do. The paradox arises when considering whether the barber shaves himself, leading to a logical inconsistency.
What is the purpose of the barber paradox in the script?
-The barber paradox is used to illustrate the importance of logical consistency in arguments and to show that a group must always be a member of itself, highlighting the necessity for sound reasoning in philosophy.
What is an argument in philosophical terms?
-In philosophical terms, an argument is a set of statements, called premises, that provide evidence for a belief, leading to a conclusion. It is not merely a verbal dispute but a structured reasoning process.
What is a deductive argument?
-A deductive argument is a type of reasoning where if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. It is a form of logical reasoning that moves from general premises to a specific conclusion.
What is the difference between validity and soundness in arguments?
-Validity in an argument means that if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. Soundness, on the other hand, refers to an argument that is not only valid but also has all true premises, ensuring the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
Why are deductive arguments valued in philosophy?
-Deductive arguments are valued in philosophy because they can provide certainty. If the premises are true and the argument is valid, the conclusion must also be true, offering a reliable method for establishing truths.
What is the role of premises in an argument?
-Premises in an argument serve as the foundation that supports the conclusion. They provide the evidence or reasons that justify the belief expressed in the conclusion, forming the structure of the argument.
Outlines
π€ The Importance of Rationality and Arguments
This paragraph introduces the concept of rationality as a defining human characteristic, contrasting it with the irrationality often displayed in debates about religion, politics, or personal preferences. It emphasizes the importance of using logical arguments to persuade others, rather than relying on emotional outbursts or witty comebacks. The narrator suggests that understanding and mastering the art of argumentation can make one more persuasive and influential, which is beneficial in various aspects of life. The historical context is provided by mentioning Plato and his views on reason, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of philosophical reasoning.
π Deductive Arguments and Their Structure
This paragraph delves into the structure and principles of deductive arguments, a fundamental aspect of philosophical reasoning. It explains that deductive arguments are built on premises that, if true, necessarily lead to a true conclusion. The narrator uses the example of human mortality to illustrate how deductive reasoning works, showing how specific conclusions can be logically derived from general premises. The paragraph also discusses the difference between a valid argument (where the premises entail the conclusion) and a sound argument (where the premises are true and the argument is valid). It highlights the importance of having true premises to ensure the soundness of an argument, and the limitations of deductive reasoning due to the rarity of having indisputably true premises.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Rationality
π‘Argument
π‘Deductive Argument
π‘Premise
π‘Conclusion
π‘Entailment
π‘Validity
π‘Soundness
π‘Tripartite Soul
π‘Barber Paradox
π‘Persuasion
Highlights
Aristotle described humans as 'the rational animal', emphasizing rationality as a distinguishing characteristic.
Rationality is what sets humans apart from beasts, as people can generally be persuaded by arguments.
Arguments are used in everyday life, such as convincing parents or friends, but most people are not adept at constructing solid arguments.
Learning about arguments and strong reasoning can make one a better philosopher and a more persuasive person.
Plato's concept of a tripartite soul includes the rational, spirited, and appetitive parts, with the rational part being the most important.
The rational part of the soul seeks truth and is swayed by facts and arguments, while the spirited part is driven by emotions and actions.
The appetitive part of the soul is shared with animals and is driven by basic desires and protections.
Plato believed that the best human beings are ruled by the rational part of their soul, keeping the spirited and appetitive parts in check.
Modern philosophers agree with Plato that reason should be the guiding force in human behavior.
Bertrand Russell's barber paradox illustrates the logical inconsistency in a group that must include itself.
A deductive argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
Deductive reasoning begins with general facts and reasons down to specific conclusions.
An argument is valid if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
Validity does not guarantee the truth of the premises or the conclusion, only that if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false.
A deductively sound argument is one that is both valid and has all true premises, ensuring the conclusion is true.
Deductive arguments provide certainty but are limited by the need for known true premises.
The value of reason, the structure of arguments, and deductive reasoning were discussed in this episode.
Transcripts
Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace.
Squarespace: share your passion with the world.
Aristotle once described humans as βthe rational animal.β
Well, actually, he said that βman is the rational animal,β but we donβt have to
be sexist just because he was.
And if youβve ever gotten into an argument with someone about religion or politics or which
Hemsworth is the hottest, then youβve experienced how irrational people can be about their opinions.
But what Aristotle meant is that rationality is our distinguishing characteristic β itβs
what sets us apart from the beasts.
And no matter how much you disagree with someone about God or Obama or Chris Hemsworth, you
can at least grant that they are not beasts.
Because, most of the time at least, people can be persuaded. By arguments.
You use arguments all the time -- in the comments, at family dinners, with your friends -- you
probably just donβt think of them the same way that philosophers do.
When you try and convince your parents to loan you the car, or when youβre talking
up Crash Course to your friends, you are using arguments. Thanks, by the way.
Each time you tell someone to do or believe something -- or when youβre explaining why
you do or believe something -- you are giving an argument.
The problem is, the vast majority of people arenβt really good at arguments.
We tend to confuse making a good argument with, like, having witty comebacks, or just
making your points more loudly and angrily, instead of building a case on a solid foundation
of logic. Which can be harder than it sounds.
But learning about arguments and strong reasoning will not only make you a better philosopher,
it will also set you up to be a more persuasive person. Someone who people will listen to.
Someone whoβs convincing.
So, yeah, these skills are beneficial no matter what you want to do with your life.
So you might as well know how to argue properly.
[Theme Music]
If you want to learn how to argue, then you should probably start about 2400 years ago,
when Plato was laying out how reason can, and should, function in the human mind.
He believed that we all have what he called a tripartite soul β what you might think
of as your βself,β or your psyche, divided into three parts.
First, thereβs the rational, or logical part of the soul, which represents cool reason.
This is the aspect of your self that seeks the truth and is swayed by facts and arguments.
When you decide to stop eating bacon for two meals a day because, as delicious as it is,
itβs bad for you, then you make that decision with the guidance of the rational part of your soul.
But then thereβs the spirited aspect, often described as the emotional part of the self,
although that doesnβt really quite capture it.
The spirited soul isnβt just about feeling -- itβs also about how your feelings fuel your actions.
Itβs the part that responds in righteous anger at injustice, the part that drives your
ambition, and calls upon you to protect others.
It gives you a sense of honor and duty, and is swayed by sympathy.
So if you decide to stop eating bacon because you just finished reading Charlotteβs Web,
and now youβre in love with Wilbur, then youβre being guided by the spirited part of your soul.
But we share the next part of our soul with other animals, be they pig, or moose, or aardvark.
The appetitive part is what drives you to eat, have sex, and protect yourself from danger.
It is swayed by temptations that are carnal, and visceral.
So at those times when you go ahead and just EAT ALL THE BACON because it just smells so
dang good, the appetitive aspect of your soul is in control.
Now, Plato believed that the best human beings -- and I should point out here that Plato
most definitely did believe that some people were better than others -- are always ruled
by the rational part of their soul, because it works to keep the spirited and the appetitive parts in check.
People who allow themselves to be ruled by their spirited or appetitive selves are base,
he believed, and not fully, properly human.
Now, most of us donβt buy into the concept of the tripartite soul anymore -- or the idea
that some humans are less human than others.
But we do understand that weβre all motivated by physical desires, emotional impulses, and rational arguments.
And philosophers continue to agree with Plato that reason should be in the driverβs seat.
So, how do you know if youβre good at it? How can you test your reasoning?
Well, letβs head over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.
Throughout this course, weβre going to apply our philosophical skills by pondering puzzles, paradoxes, and thought experiments.
Because remember: Philosophers love thinking about questions -- especially ones that donβt have ready answers.
So think of these exercises as philosophical wind-sprints -- quick tests of your mental abilities.
And hereβs a doozy, from 20th century British thinker Bertrand Russell, one of the pioneers
of whatβs known as analytic philosophy.
Say thereβs a town in which all men are required by law to be clean-shaven. This town
has only one barber, a man, who must follow strict rules:
Rule number one: He must shave all men who do not shave themselves.
Rule number two: He must not shave any man who does shave himself.
Itβs the nightmare of every libertarian and every mustachioβd hipster. But hereβs the question:
Does the barber shave himself?
Cause think about it: The barber only shaves men who donβt shave themselves. So if he does
shave himself, then he must not, because the barberβs not allowed to shave guys who shave themselves.
But, if he doesnβt shave himself, then he has to be shaved by the barber, because thatβs the law.
Russell came up with this puzzle to illustrate the fact that a group must always be a member of itself.
That means, in this case, that βall men who shave themselvesβ has to include every
guy who shaves himself, including the barber.
Otherwise, the logic that dictates the groupβs existence just doesnβt hold up.
And if the barber is a logical impossibility, then he canβt exist, which means the reasoning
behind his existence is inherently flawed.
And philosophy doesnβt tolerate flawed reasoning.
So, how do we make sure that weβre ruled by good, sound, not-flawed reason?
By perfecting the art of the argument.
An argument, in philosophy, isnβt just a shouting match.
Instead, philosophers maintain that your beliefs should always be backed up by reasons,
which we call premises.
Premises form the structure of your argument. They offer evidence for your belief, and you
can have as many premises as you like, as long as they support your conclusion, which
is the thing that you actually believe.
So, letβs dissect the anatomy of an argument.
There are actually several different species of arguments. Probably the most familiar,
and the easiest to carry out, is the deductive argument.
The main rule of a deductive arguments is: if your premises are true, then your conclusion must be true.
And knowing that something is actually true is very rare, and awesome.
So, hereβs a boiled-down version of a good deductive argument:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
This kind of reasoning, where one fact leads to another, is called entailment.
Once we know that all humans are mortal, and that Socrates is a human, those facts entail that Socrates is mortal.
Deduction begins with the general β in this case, what we know about human mortality β and
reasons down to the specific β Socrates in particular.
Whatβs great about deductive arguments is that the truth of the premises must lead to
the truth of the conclusion.
When this happens, we say that the argument is valid β thereβs just no way for the
conclusion to be false if the premises are true.
Now check out this argument:
All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates was Platoβs teacher
That argument is invalid, because nothing about human mortality can prove that Socrates was Platoβs teacher.
As you might have noticed, there are plenty of mortal humans who never taught Plato.
Whatβs interesting, though, is that this argument does happen to have a true conclusion,
which leads us to another issue. And that is:
Validity is not the same as truth.
All βvalidβ really means is that if the premises are true, then your conclusion canβt be false.
But that doesnβt mean that your premises prove your conclusion to be correct.
Like, in the case of whether Socrates was Platoβs teacher, the premises are true,
and the conclusion is true, but the argument is still not valid -- because the premises
donβt in any way prove the conclusion. It just happens to be true.
So, if your premises donβt guarantee the truth of your conclusion, then you can end up with some really crappy arguments.
Like this one: - All cats are mammals
- Iβm a mammal - Therefore, Iβm a cat
As much as part of me would like to be my cat, this is invalid because the conclusion
doesnβt entail from the premisesβ¦at all.
I mean, all cats are mammals, but all mammals arenβt cats. Which means there are such
things as non-cat mammals, which I am just one example of.
And it probably goes without saying, but you can have a perfectly valid argument and still have a false
conclusion, if any of your premises are false. For example: - All humans have tails
- My brother John is a human - Therefore, John Green has a tail!
The argument is totally valid! β Because the premises entail the conclusion! The reasoning totally stands up!
Itβs just that one of the premises is flawed.
Since Iβm reasonably certain that John doesnβt have a tail -- Iβve seen him in a bathing
suit -- this argument is not deductively sound.
And a deductively sound argument is one thatβs free of formal flaws or defects.
Itβs an argument whose premises are all true, and thatβs valid, which means its
conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
So, sound arguments should always be your goal.
The reason that deduction is prized by philosophers -- and lots of other important kinds of thinkers
-- is that itβs the only kind of argument that can give you a real certainty.
But itβs limited, because it only works if youβre starting with known, true premises, which are hard to come by.
And for what itβs worth, deductive truths are usually pretty obvious. They donβt tend
to lead us to startlingly new information, like the fact that Iβm not a cat, or that John doesnβt have a tail.
So instead of starting with premises that are already certain, like deduction does,
youβre gonna have to know how to determine the truth of, and your confidence in, your premises.
Which means youβre going to have to acquaint yourself with the other species of arguments,
which weβre gonna do next time.
But today, we talked about the value of reason, the structure of arguments, and we took a
close look at one kind of argument: deductive reasoning.
This episode of Crash Course Philosophy is made possible by Squarespace. Squarespace
is a way to create a website, blog or online store for you and your ideas. Squarespace
features a user-friendly interface, custom templates and 24/7 customer support. Try Squarespace
at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.
Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over
to their channel to check out amazing shows like The Art Assignment, The Chatterbox, and Blank on Blank.
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio
with the help of all of these amazing people and our Graphics Team is Thought Cafe.
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
Thanks for rating: