[/noratetsu/discussions are conducted with an awareness of whether the direction is pragmatic or not](https://scrapbox.io/noratetsu/discussions are conducted with an awareness of whether the direction is pragmatic or not). I guess an un-pragmatic argument would be something like āhow many angels can sit on the end of a pin?ā https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F
Since my default value system is pragmatism, I would think that āall answers are equally correct because whatever the outcome of this discussion will not bring value to my lifeā and āparticipating in this discussion is not correct because it consumes time and produces no benefitā.
Pragmatism in /arpla/argumentation.
There is a difference between an argument for utilitarianism and my argument, when I am utilitarian.
- The utilitarian argument is not based on āthis is the way it should beā as in the Linux argument, but on āthis would be usefulā.
- My argument, when I am pragmatic, is much different.
- My utilitarianism means that my definition of what is ārightā about things is that they are ābeneficial to my lifeā.
- In this case, even if someone else claims āthis is more convenientā, it can be rejected with ābut itās not convenient for meā.
- I can accept the information that āit would be more convenient for Mr. Aā because it is neither positive nor negative for me.
- The argument of āis it or not?ā, āA recognizes that it isā and āB recognizes that it is notā, so both can be accepted.
- uncontested
- No need to argue because it ends with āI donāt think so, but you think so, huh, I see.
- Fighting where there is no profit in fighting is a negative for the amount of effort it takes to fight, so the act itself is not right for me.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ćć©ć°ććć£ććÆćŖč°č« using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. Iām very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.