In English class today we tried to make sense of how and why we argue at all if there are so many ways of academic thinking. Although the discussion was very hard to follow it seems that since society or each thought group, does not acknowledge a single "Truth" it would be hard to argue with someone in a different group, for it might just cause confusion since terms would be defined differently. It is true if one considers argument on a deeper level. If two people believe different things and define their terms completely differently on what grounds can these two people argue? It seems that it is fairly important to understand or develop a basis for argument before one pursues it. If two people decide on a common ground then they could logically argue a claim.
This leads to the importance of understanding what you will talk about prior to attempting it. In argumentative writing it is important to read about the topic you will argue about prior to actually arguing. This is important because one must be knowledgeable about a topic so as not to be immediately rejected and disagreed with by their audience. They want to approach the argument with at least a sound basic knowledge so that what they will argue/say is somewhat credible. In the attempt to somewhat gain credibility by gaining information, it is also an avenue to question standing arguments and opinions in the search of a truth, or your version of one. This still seems far outside of the box, but I am working on understanding it and learning how to inquire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your blog takes on a very creative look at things. I think it's very interesting how defining the terms of the argument becomes so important before one actually starts discussion. In a way, it is a kind of agreement. One has to agree about the basic facts before the arguement actually starts. A middle ground has to be established before the the ground can be torn apart while exploring the truths.
ReplyDeleteKarin Koseck
For such a confusing and long class discussion you make it sound rather easy to understand and concise. I completely agree with you when you said that one must be knowledgeable about the subject before you can really argue it. This increases credibility and authority of the subject. This is much easier to do in writing than in speaking. When speaking how are you supposed to know how credible one really is because they may seem confident and have a lot of info but really not know anything.
ReplyDeleteI agree about how arguing to inquire is a little hard to grasp. Only because its supposed to be search into a subject to learn more about both sides of it. However, religion is such a huge part of our society and lot of people apply that to what they feel and looking into both sides of a subject won't change your religious view about it.
*Sorry this is not coherent.
Amanda (and Karin and Heather),
ReplyDeleteI have to agree. For such a vast and difficult set of concepts, Amanda, you DO isolate the heart of the issue as it relates to argument quite well here. Finding common places is important, and finding relevant questions to ask from those commonplaces also seems important. Yes, inquiry is about this, to a large extent. Inquiry, however, is also about finding what questions you want to ask rather than selecting them from the positions already available. I don't know about you, but I often thought that there were good arguments and bad arguments and I tried to find the ones I wanted to support. I guess what arguing to inquire makes me think about is whether there might be good questions and arguments between the ones I read (maybe also between disciplines) that changes what I am *allowed* to ask. I hope that as the semester goes on you will find yourself empowered to ask questions that matter to you most and frame them for your audiences in the ways they can take them up best. You are certainly off to a great start in here!