Essay Sample on How to Deal With Arguments

Introduction

In the reading about how to deal with arguments, Layman (2001) thinks that the use of logic is pertinent to understanding and then dealing with them. According to him, philosophy is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises upon which an argument provides good evidence for its conclusion. He goes on to say that to understand logic better; one needs to know what a discussion, premise, conclusion, and support is and what they refer to in understanding and dealing with disputes. With this regard, I got to understand that an argument is a set of statements, where the conclusion is backed up by other ideas that Layman termed as premises. Therefore, I got to understand that the four terms mentioned above all lead to a valid argument and consequently, the success in dealing with them. Once the understanding and definition of logic are satisfactory, one needs to move on to the next concept in dealing with arguments.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Validity forms the second step in dealing with arguments. According to Layman, a valid argument should be able to support the conclusion completely. By this observation, I learned that a convincing case that has true premises would have a correct outcome and hence, dealing with it will be easier. Additionally, for an argument to hold substance, the assumptions on which one base their theories should be accurate. Having true premises will automatically mean that the conclusion of the discussion will be correct. To this end, I learned that the validity of a case is a process and this begins with having the right facts to arrive at the correct conclusions. Furthermore, it does not matter whether the premises of an argument are true or not but rather that the end follows the premises and hence, validity is a measure of logically flow of information. One assumes that the assumptions are valid and thus, the subsequent findings are also right.

Soundness is the third concept in dealing with arguments. According to Layman, soundness of an argument is one where the validity is absolute because the premises are true. As such, I learned that robustness is a construct of efficacy and correct assumptions; when these two matches, then an argument is sound.

Common Argument Forms

To be able to understand validity, it is necessary to internalize the concept of argument form. Many logicians have come up with four fundamental argument forms which inform common arguments. According to Layman, an argument form is a pattern of reasoning which influences the validity of a case. Modus ponen is the first argument form where the premises and the conclusion are in tandem and hence, provides a valid argument. Modus tollens is a mode of negating or removing whereby, if the second premise eliminates the truth of the first one; then the conclusion is contrary. I learned that every argument that has this form of evidence is valid as the second premise negates the beginning and hence, the outcome is sound. The third form is the counterexample whereby, although the structure and the assumptions are right, the argument has a false conclusion. To this end, I understood that if a hypothesis is correct, but the outcome is wrong, then the case is a counterexample. The final form is the fallacy of affirming the consequent whereby the one assumption does not necessarily mean that the conclusion of the second premise is valid. In this form, I learned that it is essential to analyze all parts of an argument before deriving an end as they all influence the result.

Webb-Religious Experience

According to Webb (2014), most people generally term religious experiences as those happenings that seem to the person having them to be of some objective reality and thus, have some theological import. He goes on to say that truth is a complex construct which can be an individual, a state of affairs, a fact, or sometimes even an absence, depending on the religious tradition the experience is part of a more massive gathering. Webb states that since religion is a broad and diverse concept, the sightings of various individuals are often vague as they do not have a standard towards which one can ascertain them. As such, to make headway of what a religious experience is, it is of importance to distinguish religious experience from distinct but related concepts. The first option in doing so is to separate religious experience from religious feelings where the premise is on the general attitude and the experience in general. Up to this point, I understood that there is a vast difference between an adventure and the emotions that the experience stirs in a person.

Consequently, these should form a distinction in a person's life so that there can be a sense of uniformity. An example of this explanation is that where if a person feels elated in religious experience, one cannot say that the delight is spiritual; instead, the feeling happened in a religious context. In the same nerve, if a person feels happy and later comes to think of the happiness as a construct of being with someone specific, it will not be correct to say that the reality is that the latter makes the former happy. Doing so would be false realism, meaning that it is not a reality nor a fact. To this end, I understood that religious experience, though most happen in religious settings, do not necessarily mean that they are real or spiritual and hence, one cannot just say that their experience was religious. The other significant construct in defining religious experience is the ability to distinguish the former from a mystical experience. In contemporary terms, there is a close connection between mystical and spiritual backgrounds, yet the truth of the matter is that whereas all mystical experiences are spiritual experiences, not all spiritual experiences qualify as mystical experiences. Mysticism has different connotations whereby, some are of the idea that mystical involves ineffability which means that no one can accurately describe it. The other implication of the term is that it is the best of a lousy lot where the person who experiences it defines it as the ray of light in a dark moment or situation.

Types of Religious Experience

Many people report experiencing religious situations, and these reports reveal a variety of different kinds. One of these is auditory or visual experiences where the observer says that they either heard or saw something akin to a religious experience as they did not witness it physically but rather internally. To most people, the lack of a physical experience makes them quantify what they saw or heard as a religious experience as they are confident that they saw it but cannot verify it in logical terms. The other form is seeing oneself in another. For instance, a religious person identifying themselves with a different person and claiming that their vision creates enlightenment as they transcend their capability.

Regarding this, I understood that religious experience could build understanding for some people where they get to view themselves as an identity of another person who is more likely to be superior to them. Webb gives examples of this experience saying that one of them can be a person saying that they experience God through the clouds. In this case, a person can see a ball of dust and say that it looked like God and hence, it was a real representation of God. Another person seeing the same cloud may, however, see it as a cloud and not a description of God. As such, I learned that various symbols have various meanings depending on the religious standing of a person. Religion, being a different concept, presents different views and hence, it is difficult to distinguish real experiences from religious ones.

Levinas-Temptation of Temptation

Levinas' (1990) Temptation of Temptation is a searing discourse addressed to the proponents of change in contemporary society. Levinas draws the discourse form the tractate Shabbath which talks about temptations. The discussion describes the condition of the modern Western man who has a myriad of challenges that pits him/her at crossroads with the divine. The dissertation describes the moral attitudes of the Western man who is open to trying everything that comes his way. In his quest to experience every aspect of life, the Western man fails to enjoy the subtleties of life. With this regard, Levinas compares the Jews to the Western man who in this aspect, try to go through life with impatience that they end up enjoying the mundane things. The Jew faces the temptation of being like the Western man who has no regard for the things that plague his way; instead, all he cares about is to enjoy life to the fullest as fast as possible before the grim reaper comes for his soul. In exploring this notion of the Western man, Levinas borrows heavily from various philosophers who attempted to study on the meaning of life and how to deal with the various temptations that plague practically every man. One of these philosophers is Plato, who in The Republic, had to change his plan after having concluded what an austere State is. According to Plato, a just and reasonable city must have everything, and no one should shun the proliferation of new ideas; instead, people should embrace them as all temptations must be possible. These temptations are the hallmark of humankind, as they serve many purposes some of which are to advance humanity.

Just as there are temptations in Judaism, so is the case with Christianity. Christianity is a construct of the Western man, and this forms the point of reference for Levinas who is eager to compare the temptations between followers of the two religions. Christianity teaches that although the followers of the faith face many attractions from the tempter, there is also an intrinsic enemy who tries to sabotage the good in people. As such, a lot of challenges plague Christianity making life all the more meaningful. Judaism, on the other hand, proposes a relative sense of calm where the followers of the religion do not experience a lot of temptations and hence, their life is flat. As opposed to Judaism, Christians, who are mainly Westerners, want to test everything and conquer their temptations as it not only makes life more wholesome but also meaningful. The notion of experiencing growth is, however, new to the Jew. As Christianity dictates, there is no good without evil, and completion of the cycle of sin and right makes life whole. Therefore, in this regard, for one to experience life as a whole, he/she must be open to the perils that come with this decision. In essence, the temptation of temptation is a struggle between evil and good in a quest to live life to the fill and have good triumph even amid the darkness. What is so excitingly tempting is the ability to experience temptation amid good and still not be consumed by the evil stirring within and out of the person.

In reading this discourse, I learned that the temptation of temptation is a struggle of the conscience with the outward forces of evil. It tempts one's knowledge to test how far they will plunge in the deep end of evil or good in their quest for life fulfillment. For one to enjoy life while at the same time keep from falling into sin, the use of knowledge needs to take precedence. The Western man exposes himself to the temptation of temptation where the struggle is between their expertise and all the distractions that come from letting oneself mingle with what the world has to offer. In this quest for enjoying life, one gets to understand the ambiguity of life by constantly fighting with it. In conclusion, one should not be afraid of enjoying life or exposing oneself to the turbulence of life, as plunging in the deep end forms the basis of advancement in society.

Idziak - Divine Command Morality

According to Janine Marie Idziak (1980), divine commands are the...