synthetic agreement, causality, logical solvency – definitions of a good argument by CDJ – not me – but this is my analysis

Thank you response – it’s quite helpful.

Logical solvency is an interesting choice of words – solvency, a term from the world of finance to indicate just how much better the assets are than the liabilities – and the synonyms of the word are telling:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/solvency
[I love a thesaurus for it gives the general concept of a word and takes it out of its home context into related – and sometimes unrelated areas, but in this case, the synonyms are very consistent to your apparent (to me) meaning].

Synthetic agreement – by this in a “grounded in reality” sense or a “in the ways that are not analytical in nature” – which I suppose amounts to the same things… the gounded-in-reality argument sees analytical philosophy as ‘head-in-the-clouds’ and the “ways that aren’t analytical”, which has a slightly negative connotation from the analytical 2+2=4 is all that matters camp.

So if I can attempt a poor rephrasing:

a) It holds together in an analytical sense – if not perfectly, at least quite well – in a 2+2=4, all cats are mammals sense, although not necessarily wedded to a particular system of logic, so long as the logic being used is internally consistent.

This would be akin to a working structure – the engineer’s drawing, the model.

b) It’s realistic, to put it in a blunt term. The engineer’s plans are agreeable to the stakeholders, the community, its aesthetic in senses other than its logical consistency.

c) In general, there’s gotta be an agent. There’s change. There’s a before causing an after.

Let me know what I got wrong here.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


four × 8 =

Leave a Reply