 |
Dr.
Tadeusz Lemańczyk
Institute of Management
Engineering |
Great people tell us
about discussions |
21/01/2006, 05:41 am
|
[ Answer
] |
[ Edit
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr.
Tadeusz Lemańczyk
Institute of Management
Engineering |
Discussion method
theory and practice |
26/01/2006, 12:41 pm
|
[ Answer
] |
[ Edit
] |
[ Delete
] |
|
I mentioned that well-known Polish logician already
in Polish Slavic Club (1330 That Epistle of my patron 10/29/1999
01:03 am EDT, TadFromPoland --  http://www.geocities.com/tadfrompoland/floor2a.html
, available now at http://geocities.com/lydiafrompoland/bbs1330.htm
and 3035 Obrona pracy... w Australii 10/14/00 5:52 am, TadFromPoland
-- http://www.geocities.com/tadfrompoland/floor35a.html
, available now at http://geocities.com/lydiafrompoland/bbs3035.htm )
and I mentioned him anew in one of my blended learning courses (601
Odrobina kursu logiki 11/3/01 11:40 am, TadFromPoland -- http://www.geocities.com/tadfrompoland/sem1t5.html
). Let me add today some of his thoughts regarding a
discussion. "§ 2. Dyskusja i jej rodzaje Dyskusja
rzeczowa jest to zbiorowe, uporządkowane i wzajemne wypowiadanie
swych myśli w tym celu, żeby wspólnie znaleźć dobrą odpowiedź na
jakieś pytanie. Dyskusja rzeczowa jest to zbiorowa i wzajemna
wymiana myśli, nie ma więc dyskusji rzeczowej, gdy jeden wygłasza
przemówienie, a reszta przyjmuje to biernie do wiadomości, zapytując
tylko, jak to czy owo rozumieć. Dyskusja rzeczowa jest uporządkowaną
wymiana myśli, nie można więc mówić o dyskusji, jeśli na jakimś
zgromadzeniu każdy mówi o czym chce i kiedy chce, nie zważając na
innych. Dyskusja rzeczowa może być przy tym dyskusją teoretyczną, to
znaczy zmierzającą do wykrycia prawdy co do jakiejś kwestii, lub
dyskusją praktyczną, to znaczy zmierzającą do wspólnego obmyślenia
środków prowadzących do postawionego sobie celu. Nie każda
dyskusja jest dyskusją rzeczową: czasem ludzie schodzą się na jakieś
zebranie towarzyskie czy literackie nie po to, żeby wspólnie pewną
sprawę rzeczowo naświetlić i dojść wspólnie do tezy prawdziwej, lecz
po to, by zapoznać się z poglądami innych osób na daną kwestię, np.
z ocenami, czy im się jakieś dzieło sztuki podoba, czy nie (a jak
wiadomo, o gustach nie można dyskutować). Nie są też dyskusja
rzeczową tzw. 'zebrania budujące' (Por. W. Witwicki. Co to jest
dyskusja i jak ją trzeba prowadzić, Warszawa 1949, s. 16) na które
przychodzą ludzie o z góry ustalonym jednakowym poglądzie na pewna
sprawę i wygłaszają swoje przemówienia właściwie tylko po to, by
jedni drugich nawzajem utwierdzić w ich postawie, np. by zgodnie
stwierdzić, że zmarły, któremu poświęcona jest akademia żałobna, był
człowiekiem kryształowego charakteru i wielkich cnót, a jego
świetlana pamięć trwać będzie itd., itd. Dyskusja rzeczowa
polega na tym, że każdy z zabierających w niej głos, formułując
pewną tezę lub przyłączając się do zdania swych przedmówców, stara
się jak najlepiej uzasadnić swoje stanowisko. Kto wypowiada takie
twierdzenia, których inni uczestnicy dyskusji nie uważają za
twierdzenia niesporne, i nie przytacza argumentacji na poparcie
swego stanowiska, ten – jak mówimy – wypowiada się w sposób
dogmatyczny. W dyskusji rzeczowej dogmatyzm jest niedopuszczalny:
nikt nie ma obowiązku liczyć się z twierdzeniami podanymi bez
argumentacji. Jeśliby ktoś wykorzystując swoje stanowisko społeczne
usiłował narzucić innym dyskutantom swoje tezy w sposób dogmatyczny,
to zamieniłby on dyskusję w odprawę służbową, wykład, instruktaż lub
coś podobnego. Dyskusja rzeczowa jest tylko tam, gdzie
równouprawnieni uczestnicy dyskusji wypowiadają tezy uargumentowane
i tylko siła argumentów, a nie pozycja społeczna dyskutantów, ma
znaczenie istotne. " Zygmunt Ziembiński. LOGIKA PRAKTYCZNA.
Wydanie czwarte przejrzane. Warszawa, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
1965, s. 273-274 Have you ever read the above thoughts
translated into English by Leon Ter-Organian? In an article giving a
judgment on that book, after the quote "The present book is an
elementary textbook on logic for university undergraduates. It is
intended mainly for students of law. For nineteen years this book
has served students of law as well as those of other branches of the
humanities in Poland" we can read "In the concluding part of the
book, called 'The Intellectual Work of Lawyers' the author is mainly
concerned to study problems concerning the justification of court
judgements and the interpretation of legal provisions" [Practical
Logic. By Zygmunt Ziembiński. Translated from the 7th edition of
Logika praktyczna by Leon Ter-Organian. (Dordrecht & Boston:
Reidel, 1976. Pp. xv + 437. Price $29.00.) By: Pörn, Ingmar.
Philosophical Quarterly, Oct78, Vol. 28 Issue 113, p364-366, 3p; (AN
13407205)]. The above § 2 is just a fragment of that concluding part
of the book. Incidentally, what do you think, is Zygmunt
Ziembiński's "The Intellectual Work of Lawyers" a source of
inspiration also for Professor Peggy Davis's work ( http://www.law.nyu.edu/workways/workways.html
)? Regards, Tad |
|
|
Dr.
Tadeusz Lemańczyk
Institute of Management
Engineering |
Zygmunt Ziembiński
tells us about discussions |
28/01/2006, 11:13 am
|
[ Answer
] |
[ Edit
] |
[ Delete
] |
|
Dr. Tadeusz Lemańczyk wrote:
Have you ever read the above
thoughts translated into English by Leon
Ter-Organian? I feel that I should quote that
English translation of Zygmunt Ziembiński's book for you all.
Fortunately, one copy (927059 II) of it is also in Poznań University
Library ( http://lib.amu.edu.pl/angielska/index.htm ). There
aren't any copies of it in libraries near you, are they?
;-) "§ 2. DISPUTATION AND ITS KINDS A controversy may
be carried on in form of a discussion. A matter-of-fact discussion
is a collective, ordered, mutual interchange of ideas in order to
find together a good answer to some question. It is an exchange of
ideas, therefore it cannot be said to exist in instances where one
person delivers a speech with all the rest passively acquiescing,
and asking only how one expression or another is to be understood.
It is an ordered exchange of ideas, so we cannot say that a
discussion was held at some meeting if everybody said whatever and
whenever he or she liked, without paying any attention to others. A
matter-of-fact discussion may be a theoretical discussion, that is
to say, directed towards discovering the truth of some question; or
it may be a practical discussion, that is, one aiming at a
collective finding out of a means leading to realization of the goal
in view. Not every discussion is a matter-of-fact one:
sometimes people gather together at some social party or literary
evening not for the purpose of elucidating some problem or coming
together to a true conclusion, but to listen to the opinions of
other people concerning some problem, for example, to evaluations of
whether they liked a show in the theatre or not. 'Educative
meetings' are also not matter-of-fact discussions. These meetings
are attended by people of preconceived and similar opinions fixed
beforehand. They deliver their speeches only to confirm one
another's attitude, for example, to state unanimously that the
deceased person, to who the funeral academy is devoted, was a man of
sterling character and great virtues, and his dear memory will last
for ever, and so on. A matter-of-fact discussion consists in
everybody taking the floor in turn and presenting a formulation of
some thesis, seconding or supporting the opinion of the preceding
speakers, and trying to justify his opinion as well as he can.
Anyone who makes any statements that are not regarded as
indisputable theses by other participants in the dispute, and does
not give any argumentation in favour of his opinion, is said to
speak dogmatically. In a matter-of-fact discussion dogmatism is
inadmissible: nobody has any obligation to take into consideration
statements pronounced without any arguments. If anybody abuses his
social position and attempts to force other participants of the
discussion in a dogmatic manner into sharing his theses, then he
changes the discussion into a briefing, lecture, training or
something of the kind. A matter-of-fact discussion takes place only
in those cases when only the force of the arguments, and not the
social position of the participants has any deciding weight (In this
section remarks from W. Witwicki's paper have been utilized. Cf. W.
Witwicki, Co to jest dyskusja i jak ją trzeba prowadzić, Warszawa
1949, p. 16.)" Practical Logic. By Zygmunt Ziembiński.
Translated from the 7th edition (published in 1973) of Logika
praktyczna by Leon Ter-Organian. Dordrecht & Boston: Reidel,
1976, p. 352-353 What can we learn from the above thoughts?
Are these thoughts, which were formulated almost a half of a century
ago, still relevant to World Wide Web-based asynchronous
discussions, including our discussion about "Discussions as the
method of studying and solving
problems"? Regards, Tad |
|
|
Dr.
Tadeusz Lemańczyk
Institute of Management
Engineering |
Zygmunt Ziembiński
on ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM |
29/01/2006, 09:06 am
|
[ Answer
] |
[ Edit
] |
[ Delete
] |
|
Dr. Tadeusz Lemańczyk wrote:
Over six years ago I wrote in that message:
"Well-known Polish logician, Zygmunt Ziembiński (see e.g.
Encyklopedia Popularna PWN. Warszawa, PWN, 1982, s. 893), nicknamed
by his students 'Ghandi' taught this and other quarrel arguments to
my wife and me in 1966/1967. They say that ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM or
ARGUMENTUM EX CONCESSO was successfully used by Socrates." ( http://geocities.com/lydiafrompoland/bbs1330.htm )
Here are the appropriate fragments of the book "Practical
logic." A great mastery in leading disputes is attributed to
Socrates, the Greek philosopher. The Socratic method of persuading
his opponent is said to have consisted in the following: first he
came to an understanding with his opponent on the initial
statements, the premises of all further inferences. Then, step by
step, he inferred from these premises further and further
conclusions, taking great care that the opponent should agree with
him at each consecutive step of his inference. In this manner
Socrates arrived finally at the thesis which his opponent had
originally opposed. If anyone proves that from the premise assumed
by his opponent it is possible to infer in a correct manner exactly
what the opponent is opposed to, then he applies what is called
argumentum ad hominem or argumentum ex concesso (from what the
opponent conceded). Practical Logic. By Zygmunt Ziembiński.
Translated from the 7th edition (published in 1973) of Logika
praktyczna by Leon Ter-Organian. Dordrecht & Boston: Reidel,
1976, p. 356 Everyone who has read "Logical Fallacies and the
Art of Debate" (  https://www.academici.com/cgi-bin/forum.fpl?op=showarticles&id=1031456
) sees that Zygmunt Ziembiński tells rather about ARGUMENTUM EX
CONCESSO ("An inference founded on a proposition which an opponent
has already admitted." -- http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html#Argumentum%20ex%20concesso
) not about ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM ("An irrelevant or malicious
appeal to personal circumstances; it consists in diverting an
argument from sound facts and reasons to the personality of one's
opponent, competitor or critic." -- http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem
). In fact, such a meaning of ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM appears in his
book with another name ARGUMENTUM AD PERSONAM. A particularly
vulgar eristic device is insulting the opponent, to make the
listeners believe that since the opponent is a silly and abject man,
then his statements are false. Argumentation of this kind, called
argumentum ad personam, is inadmissible among cultured people.
Disputation should be carried on suaviter in modo, fortiter in re
(suavely as to manner, powerfully as to content), never vice versa.
When you raise your voice, the power of your arguments will not be
increased. Ibidem, p. 357 Is Zygmunt Ziembiński right
in equating the name ARGUMENTUM EX CONCESSO with the name ARGUMENTUM
AD HOMINEM and using the name ARGUMENTUM AD PERSONAM for the content
of ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM? Which meaning of ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM was
therefore applied to those false teachers by Jude the Apostle ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08542b.htm
)? Regards, Tad |
| |
