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 Tuesday at 10:21 PM 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 Tuesday at 10:45 PM 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 Tuesday at 11:01 PM 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 23 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.

[PsychedelicEagle]

This is a good insight.

I need to contemplate it further. At first, I’d say not only sameness vs difference.

For example: should universities be free (funded by the government for all citizens)?

 How would you argue in favor of or against this type of question? Does it, at some point, gets reduced to sameness vs difference?

[Human Mint]

You can ask that question in any argument and it will help you, for sure. In what ways are x and y different and in which ways the same? Good starting point to dig deeper.

Sometimes it helps to see things as sameness and sometimes is best to see the differences.

The point is that your mind already rotates between the two a lot in your deeds. Sometimes you will draw sameness everywhere, sometimes two things are completely alien.