Correct me if I’m wrong, OP, but it sounds like you’re talking about retreating to the axioms of the particular belief system, as in there is a point where reason breaks down because you get to things that you (the person whose expressing their opinion) have accepted that’s different than me.
To me this is a bit of a Motte and Bailey fallacy as your question was whether or not you have a good argument and then someone replied to that and then moved to the set of assumptions which has nothing to do with argument.
For me personally, the other person has to demonstrate some level of critical reasoning for me to respect their opinions, even if their assumptions are different than mine. Beliefs that are entered into using reasoning are more useful than ones without because they can be changed which is what discourse is all about
There is still a foundation that you should be able to explain. Do you want to just explain what happened instead of talking in hypotheticals? What is your hot take?
That’s technically true, but the question then becomes, why are our assumptions different?
If it’s based on different beliefs of what reality is (ground work), it would be normal to fight for truth.
If it’s based on our affinity for the result of the argumentation (the house), it would also be normal to fight for our own benefit and those like us.
So realistically i don’t see any reason as to why we should respect each other’s opinions… all would incentives us to fight for the correct assumptions.
This in itself doesn’t mean we should stop respecting people though!
It isn’t a worldview devoid of reason. It’s perfectly good reason based upon a set of assumptions that differ from yours.
Reason is the house. The assumptions is the ground upon which the house is built.
Some ground is rock, some swamp, some flat, sloped… all require different house designs. Dig?
Correct me if I’m wrong, OP, but it sounds like you’re talking about retreating to the axioms of the particular belief system, as in there is a point where reason breaks down because you get to things that you (the person whose expressing their opinion) have accepted that’s different than me.
To me this is a bit of a Motte and Bailey fallacy as your question was whether or not you have a good argument and then someone replied to that and then moved to the set of assumptions which has nothing to do with argument.
For me personally, the other person has to demonstrate some level of critical reasoning for me to respect their opinions, even if their assumptions are different than mine. Beliefs that are entered into using reasoning are more useful than ones without because they can be changed which is what discourse is all about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Today I learned! :)
There is still a foundation that you should be able to explain. Do you want to just explain what happened instead of talking in hypotheticals? What is your hot take?
Really? A worldview requiring accepting ideas without verification and contrary to logic isn’t devoid of reason? In what planet?
That’s technically true, but the question then becomes, why are our assumptions different?
If it’s based on different beliefs of what reality is (ground work), it would be normal to fight for truth.
If it’s based on our affinity for the result of the argumentation (the house), it would also be normal to fight for our own benefit and those like us.
So realistically i don’t see any reason as to why we should respect each other’s opinions… all would incentives us to fight for the correct assumptions.
This in itself doesn’t mean we should stop respecting people though!