Verified answer

They’re full of hot air

~~~ It makes sense when you understand people and their egos.

'Feels good' (ego) to 'win' an argument, doesn't it?

It is all about a delicate juvenile ego attempting to make itself 'feel good', masturbation!

Philosophy is not about argument in that sense, of winning and losing, but in the sense of sharing Perspectives and supporting them logically, experientially... etc...

Both win as both walk away with a greater/wider Perspective!

Observe;

Seven blind men surround and touch/examine an elephant. The one touching his tail exclaims that it is like a hairy snake... etc... That perspective is actually correct, but it is also quite limited. If the man wished to move the elephant to the other side of a wall, he might be led to think that he can get it through a small hole in the wall. Obviously, he will run into trouble and, perhaps, frustration and anger...

All the time he has been arguing with the others around the elephant regarding their 'perspectives'. Ego declares 'rightness' which gives rise to 'wrongness', and everyone knows that 'I' cannot be 'wrong'.. etc...

The other fellows around the elephant are finding the same problems of 'their' perspective.

All perspectives are correct, all are limited/incomplete (some more so than others).

If one of the men listened to the others and accepted the testimony (tentatively, of course) of another, experience will show that there will be less 'problems' with the elephant, the larger the perspective (inclusive of other perspectives rather than egoically contesting them).

The 'sum' of two perspectives = one new unique 'wider/deeper' perspective. Still limited/incomplete, but more 'useful' than either one of the component perspectives.

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Win/win!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

All unique (Perspectives/perceptions) 'knowledge' is perceived by 'One' Consciousness.

tat tvam asi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

If nothing is there, it will not give any taste. So something is added in order to give a finishing touch to it. Ignorant people only argue and stick to their stand. Philosophers try to understand, adjust and cooperate with the contending party and they discuss the issues in a friendly and cordial atmosphere without any quarrel. Otherwise what is the difference between a gossip and argument. It will be a confusion galore.

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a

theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition

theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system

in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means

that a statement can always be found that can be

neither disproved nor proved using the means of that

particular system. To discuss about such a statement,

one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise

nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist

say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite

is logically possible and hence should not be treated

as contradictory.

"Goedel's results are the crucial evidence that stable self-contained

systems of reasoning cannot be perfect (just because they are stable and

self-contained). Such systems are either very restricted in power (i.e.

they cannot express the notion of natural numbers with induction

principle), or they are powerful, yet then they lead inevitably either

to contradictions, or to undecidable propositions".

http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt.html

Kurt Goedel's Theorems prove that in any reasoned (axiomized) system of

even modest complexity, there are certain statements and conclusions

that are true but unprovable within that system. "Listening to reason"

within a system would then prejudice one's self to the truth that is not

proven, hence, "being lost" to the more complete truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incom...

https://plus.maths.org/content/goumldel-and-limits...

Limitations of Logic and the Absence of Absolute Certainty

http://camraleigh.org/exhibitions/2013mcclymont/to...

They don’t know when to cut their losses because they’re a glutton for punishment.

A) practice

B) contrarianism

C) anger issues

D) incompetence at basic thought

It is sport for some and simple thick-headedness for others I think.

Because it feels good when you convince someone to think like you.