* The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other.
* The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof.
* The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts.
This Trilemma is just for giving you an idea about types of arguments and little bit of creating impression about me (:P).
We came across several heated debates on the online community, forums and blogs about any topic. In a typical argument, each person tries to prove themselves right and the other person wrong. Instead of synthesis or refining of ideas, our focus shifts to stick to our owns idea as prime and supreme one. In the end, each person only ends up either more entrenched in their views or influenced by dominant juggling of words, regardless of who seems to deliver the most rational argument. Arguments are done for the sake of progress than victory. An argument can't be won by resistance. It will only increase the stubbornness of others and a little communication of importance will be achieved. Trying to prove yourself right and the other person wrong is like making a frontal assault on an entrenched enemy position. The goal of your argument is attempting to raise the other person’s awareness while maintaining your own sense of inner peace and identity with the idea.
I wanted to know why so brilliant individuals can't agree on a small point for evolving into next level of discussion. Its major reason which I can catch was that our education system fosters competitive excellence rather than intellectual curiosity or cooperation . Also, I want to know how to conclude these arguments as per seen similar situations in much popular fish market like Group discussions (GD). Any suggestions ??????????????
For good reading purpose,
1- Tagore and his India --- Amartya Sen.
2- Leszek Kołakowski (1927- 2009)
3- Who killed the Indian University ?
4- An interview with Fatima Bhutto.
5- Recession: How Risk Models Failed Wall St. and Washington?