Do you remember why a argument/assertion/position is inherently invalid if it doesn't establish its context?

Question

Hi There,

At 66, and being a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, my memory isn't what it used to be. So, when I ask myself WHY to the question I posed above...so as to prove or establish its known validity, I now seem to get nowhere.....no matter how hard or long I try.

I used to know this....but unfortunately, I'm having problems now.

Anyway, I'm also working with dropping the context, argument of the false alternative, and the argument from intimidation....in a piece on immigration reform.

So, if any of you Ayn Rand Objectivists, Libertarians, or just philosophy-interested folks out there are willing to help out, I sure would appreciate it, very much.

I'm half-Mexican, and a lot of American Indian...but am neither racist nor ethnocentric.

I'm against the oxymoron of any form, degree or level of amnesty.....with or without the self-invalidating contradiction of any accompanying penalty or punishment.

I sure would appreciate your help.

Thanks.

Answer 1

No, I dont remember !!

Answer 2

Your mom!!

(literally, that needs context. If you just walk in to the metro and yell it out people will be like what the ***)

My final answer: It's not. And besides, it's inherently IMPOSSIBLE for something not to have context. For example, when someone asks you something they normally give you clues as to what they wanna hear or if they wanna say something, the kinda reaction they wanna get.

So, you're really wise and I admire you. You are even better than me and I now aspire to be 65.
I know you did your best at Vietnam. There was nothing else anyone could have done to stop the war, your generation did a great job.
You are my new hero, seriously.

How'd I do?

Answer 3

Hail fellow Vet well met. I did my time from '63 till '75. There's two sure signs of age; one is a loss of memory. I can't remember what the other one was. Oh yeah.. your question...

Content is the words. Context is the meaning. So if an argument doesn't have meaning it would inherit invalidity.

You express yourself well. I did a couple of months college then bailed out to see the world. Didn't know there was a war comin.

Cast aside are the infantialism of entrenched youth.
The demagoguery spawned by Machiavellian manipulation of spontaneous material manifestations. (Pogo c. 1959)

I just noticed the other day, you don't see the Nam ribbon on uniforms these days. The old-timers are Gulf War Vets.

Answer 4

Never mind about the lapse of memory; that actually is rather minor at the outset. The memory factor will come of its own accord so long as you allow it to proceed in "context" of what is placed before you.

Your mission is to 'derive' and not solely 'memorize.' Acumen comes to bear over memory here. Insofar as memory serves as presenting precedent, then, yes, rely upon it. The courts, for example, look to precedent often in adjuding or deciding cases.

Let's put it into more plain terms here:

Context = container

Content = what substance you put in the container

Your inner workings will demonstrate a ' with respect to ' in your presentation: this references the container. It underlies the compass of the matter you do address. Herewith content is put to action...the argument itself.

Should you drop the context, however, all you shall have is a spill -- a waste, for you have nothing into which to place the content.

Your opponent will be quick to salvage this, which cleaning up will not work to your advantage.

Your are not wise to engage the breadth but rather to focus relative to what is before you.

Drop allusions to others' works unless you are reasonably clear that such allusion supports you, such that you can translate the overriding principle into the context with which you are using and now faced.

I mean here, drop the turns of speech and constructions, such as those you just pointed out, to wit: "argument of the false alternative; " argument from intimidation" -- these do not import nor impress as much as do native acumen and intuition on the matter.

For those sorts of turns of thought we know and have heard before, which might be good backdrop for your own edification or at least they inform you in some measure. But they can as well impress you more than they do your opponent. Thus do not delude yourself.

You do have your inborn ability and three inherent tools to work with: intuition, analysis, and synthesis, the last of which three is the most important. For out of this last one comes both the sheer context and the fuel itself, the content...

Woe to you if you should pander to your or anyone else's ego. This can be a grave error, for you must know that your arguments are no more or no less fine-spun than the next guy's; therefore, you will approach what is before you with humility, not vainglory. Do not import deficit or surplus. Keep of balance...

Thereto, don't confuse yourself. Be as respectful, as original as much as possible, for you are arguing 'Home.'

Do not present "weaponry" whose capacity the enemy knows well the extent to which it can mame or destroy.

Put up a new weaponry to the enemy, that with which he or she is not familiar, else you give to the enemy that which can be too easily defined; and if one can define a thing, one can control it. Otherwise, you are relegated to a principle of military tactics, remember!, over which you will have little if any control: " if you can see the enemy, the enemy can see you."