@jgweed,
kennethamy;169874 wrote: The fact that there are more complicated arguments than the Aristotleian example not a valid argument for the conclusion that the Aristotelian example is only an argument in a very generous sense (whatever that means).
I think the issue with this is that no one is arguing that. One point that could have been derived from my previous post was that "among the various types of argumentative approaches, Aristotle said x, although Y, but in any case Z." Aristotle's categorical argument is not complicated, it is just different. Also, in the previous paragraph, the argument being contrived of as an argument in a "generous" sense was more like another premise. And when I say "generous," a say it in regards to the context in which I am talking about it. If it is a "place holder" so to speak, it would not superficially fit well with the general conception of an argument (of which the thread is about and perhaps could have been an additional talking point).
kennethamy;169874 wrote: That would be like saying that because a penny is less valuable than a nickel, that a penny is only a coin in a very generous sense.
kennethamy;169874 wrote: Indeed, you might want to examine this argument of yours. What difference does the "substantiality" of the content of the argument make to whether or not it is an argument? None, of course.
The word "substantial" taken within the context of "content" is that it is the essential concept, the basic idea, the main idea, the should-be obvious notion, the how-could-I-miss-the-basic-premise-of-the-story, etc. etc. As in the context of the substantial content, the issue has been the subtleties of predicates in arguments. Ignoring that won't make it get any better though.
kennethamy;169874 wrote: And, indeed, in order to examine and understand the nature of argument, it is heuristically important to examine an argument with insubstantial content so that the essentials of argumentation can be clearly understood. I suppose you have never taught logic. It would be almost suicidal to begin with the more complicated before the simpler was thoroughly understood. You don't introduce calculus with tensor calculus.
Sweet bejezus, I think you may have actually indirectly answered one of the parts of the topics of the thread.
(OMG Calm down, vide, calm down.) So would you say that you would agree with Jebidiah and Arjuna that it is important to understand elements such as the author's motives, etc? The type of content is insubstantial in the respect that it does not form an explicit part of the argument, but more of an implicit part. Also, would you say that an argument is inherently understood in heuristic terms? Or is argumentative approach a general set model for us to emulate instead? But how would I never teaching logic (which actually is untrue, since I have had a thread series devoted to it for some time and have helped out at least one person with their homework) connect to this conversation? Would you say (considering this little addition) that an argument is still valid if it contains personal attacks, or even had additional irrelevant premises? Could an irrelevant personal attack still be considered a valid form of argument?
Also, suicide is not the answer Kennethamy. Tensor calculus is also not the answer Kennethamy. I would add, dimensional non-quantified super hyperbaric multidimensional mechanics is not the answer as well. LOL! Get it? Obfuscation? Irony? Curiouser and curiouser.