Are all arguments just "Sameness vs difference"

[enchanted]

For example consider the question: Is Trump like Hitler? 

Those who believe Trump is like Hitler will argue the similarities between the two leaders. Those who are against this notion will bring up differences between. 

Do all arguments basically come down to people looking for similarities and differences? In the end, How can we know who is right?

Edited 11 hours ago by enchanted

[LastThursday]

I don't think arguments are on face value necessarily about sameness or difference. The framing of the argument matters. For example you ask if "Is Trump like Hitler?", the framing naturally sets up an adversarial argument and so you naturally look for differences and similarities in order to sort out the truth of it.

Argumentation is mostly about getting at some sort of truth, either real or perceived. Or, it's about expounding your own version of truth. If your truth is that Jesus saves then there is no sameness or difference being discussed, you argue from that position of absoluteness. 

Other types of argumentation just go through a chain of reasoning, where one thing leads to another. I like to call each link in the chain "an equivalence". An equivalence can be something like, God is love, or love is freedom and so on. Or it can be more cause and effect: if you push that domino, the rest will fall - but this is just another kind of equivalence. Ultimately, an equivalence is just a similarity in disguise; if God is love then you're really saying God and love are similar. Of course you can always put a not in front of the equivalence and turn it into a difference.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by LastThursday
typo

[Joseph Maynor]

I remember watching this video when it came out and having a mixed review regarding it.  
 

 

[enchanted]

3 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

. Ultimately, an equivalence is just a similarity in disguise; if God is love then you're really saying God and love are similar. Of course you can always put a not in front of the equivalence and turn it into a difference.

 

Hey thanks for the reply. So you agree then: An equivalence is a 'similarity' in disguise? 

[enchanted]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I remember watching this video when it came out and having a mixed review regarding it.  

 

Yes I am also referring to that video. What's your mixed review? 

[LastThursday]

@Joseph Maynor that was a good video. It's been a while and I only watched it once, but from memory my main take away was that sameness and difference is really a matter of perspective taking. You choose consciously or otherwise what is the same and what is different, there's no inherent nature to it.

11 minutes ago, enchanted said:

So you agree then: An equivalence is a 'similarity' in disguise? 

Yes insofar as my argument goes.  But not all argumentation is directly about equivalences either - philosophical or scientific arguments might be. You could just be saying "hey I believe this" and that's it - effectively you're arguing an absolute position and won't be swayed - i.e. a non-scientific kind of argument.

But. Language is full of equivalences and it's nearly impossible to get away from them. Just pay attention to how equivalences are used, the words to look out for are: is, is like, a type of, the same as, similar to, leads to, causes, understands. Most constructions of the form A verb B . And then their inverses: is not like, not the same as etc. etc.

Edited 10 hours ago by LastThursday

[Joseph Maynor]

@LastThursday  That is one of the first Leo videos that I didn't like.  I watched it when it came out.  

Edited 2 hours ago by Joseph Maynor

[enchanted]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@LastThursday  That one one of the first Leo videos that I didn't like.  I watched it when it came out.  

What didn't you like about it?

[enchanted]

@LastThursdaythanks for the replies. You are right. I should say that many arguments are "sameness vs difference" but not all 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, enchanted said:

@LastThursdaythanks for the replies. You are right. I should say that many arguments are "sameness vs difference" but not all 

This video is on point because it goes back to the discussion we were having about the relative and the Absolute (finite and afinite).  I don't pit difference up against sameness, I see a link between the two.

[Joseph Maynor]

Most arguments can be contextually demonstrated.  It depends on what we are trying to resolve with an argument.

[oOo]

Is the argument coming from someone's crazy ex? Tyrannical boss? Devil worshipping elites sacrificing babies at the altar in exchange for fame and money? MAGA intoxicated? A puppet for government and business propaganda on AI, aliens and UFO's? 

It isn't even necessarily an apt comparison to ask the question is the argument coming from a human or an AI, given they can both be either as sycophantic as each other or failing to grasp context, perspective, circumstances and nuance.  

Sameness and difference is an optimisation clause, and a good one, however it doesn't necessarily automatically imply that there's going to be optimisation on the right vectors; that's a more difficult thing to solve and doesn't always end with the remaining gap between sameness and difference that otherwise implies 'the right answer'.

Despite 'sameness vs difference' being something that has 'levels of abstraction in application', it doesn't account for problems that cannot be computed, not having all of the necessary information, human bias and limitation including in the ways that we actually reason about problems.

A great example for me involves a strict determinist arguing that free will doesn't exist because if we could "go all the way back to the big bang and resimulate the rest of the universe your choice wouldn't be able to be any other way". On the face of it, its extremely convincing when you're less than a novice on the subject, however it makes many assumptions that someone has to take for granted in reasoning about the truth of their statements. The simple fact that humans have awareness for example, allows humans to observe, be observed and change in response to that observation independent of being put under a brain scanner that ends with a research paper pedalled by dilatante's saying free will doesn't exist because someones responses can be predicted 8 to however many seconds prior to their execution. And that's for the simple fact that at the very least as it concerns the people trying to use said example as their case for determinism, there isn't the discrimination between higher and lower order choices and the influence that awareness has over those choices. Awareness is not made equal. 

So perhaps many arguments can be described through sameness and difference, its a good runway to land a plane and get the plane to the air. My question is whether that description is enough to tell us which distinctions are relevant, what follows from them, whether the conclusion is true, and whether UFO's are a conspiracy in part or in whole, and if either, whether the technology that usually corresponds exists in the hands of humans or non-humans, and if the latter, if beings that fit that category have ever made contact with humans in any way. 

On another note, do you believe in aliens @enchanted , and do you think that AI and transhumanist incels like Peter Thiel and Sam Altman are more reptilian than the actual reptilians (both those on our home planet and those that supposedly come from further afar)? Where does your argument lay, and does this question help your own answer on your thread question? 
 

Edited 56 minutes ago by oOo