I suspect most sub-fields in professional philosophy have a version of the following sociological phenomenon: a group of people that look quite mainstream and central and, yet, simultaneously doing something distinctive (a shared technique or method, a background commitment, a style, etc.) Often in such cases, but not always, there is a common influence through a supervisor or a charismatic person in the field.
Arguments are about persuasion, no less in professional philosophy than in any other discipline. Convincing others that some claim is true or not true. Taking a side in a conceptual dispute, hoping to prevail, or at least sign on to the right side of history. Something like that.
It seems odd to me that denizens of academic philosophy gloss over, if not outright ignore, that ritualized systems of argumentation have their origins in the operation of courts, in the actual practice of the law. (I'm not an attorney, by the way.)
Formal rules of pleading, citation of authority, standards of evidence, elevation of learned jurists. Have you noticed the robes of office for judges worldwide look suspiciously like the robes worn by professors and those graduating from university studies? Guild concerns aside, philosophy and law have overlapped as long as human societies have existed:
// India has a recorded legal history starting from the Vedic ages and some sort of civil law system may have been in place during the Bronze Age and the Indus Valley civilization. Law as a matter of religious prescriptions and philosophical discourse has an illustrious history in India. Emanating from the Vedas, the Upanishads and other religious texts, it was a fertile field enriched by practitioners from different Hindu philosophical schools and later by Jains and Buddhists. //
*********
If philosophy involves reasoning about 'how best to live', this is operationalized in the design and implementation of laws. Both statements and actions that deviate from community standards of conduct, embodied in the laws of the community, are subject to standards of justice, in the 'justice system'. But what is justice? What constitutes sound evidence? How do we say whether testimony is true of false? The law, the law, the law. [Insert preferred lawyer joke here.] But also, this is the stuff professional philosophers have claimed as their turf since time immemorial. (There was this fella, Socrates, who made philosophical arguments in a court of law. He was served a Hemlock Margarita for his efforts. By order of the court.)
Right now, today, across the US and around the world, individuals are awaiting execution because of morally suspect laws, faulty evidence, and specious arguments. Rights are under continuous attack. The very design, operation and purpose of systems of justice are the subject of violent dispute, and vicious argumentation.
These are things that should concern us all, including professional philosophers.
Th study and practice of argumentation matters. A lot.
At least if the focus of such study bears some relation to the real world, the lives of real people.
So maybe a little less abstruse and esoteric abstraction is in order. A little less inside baseball kibbitzing and club membership posturing.
Arguments are about persuasion, no less in professional philosophy than in any other discipline. Convincing others that some claim is true or not true. Taking a side in a conceptual dispute, hoping to prevail, or at least sign on to the right side of history. Something like that.
It seems odd to me that denizens of academic philosophy gloss over, if not outright ignore, that ritualized systems of argumentation have their origins in the operation of courts, in the actual practice of the law. (I'm not an attorney, by the way.)
Formal rules of pleading, citation of authority, standards of evidence, elevation of learned jurists. Have you noticed the robes of office for judges worldwide look suspiciously like the robes worn by professors and those graduating from university studies? Guild concerns aside, philosophy and law have overlapped as long as human societies have existed:
http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/about/about-the-legal-profession/legal-education-in-the-united-kingdom/
// India has a recorded legal history starting from the Vedic ages and some sort of civil law system may have been in place during the Bronze Age and the Indus Valley civilization. Law as a matter of religious prescriptions and philosophical discourse has an illustrious history in India. Emanating from the Vedas, the Upanishads and other religious texts, it was a fertile field enriched by practitioners from different Hindu philosophical schools and later by Jains and Buddhists. //
*********
If philosophy involves reasoning about 'how best to live', this is operationalized in the design and implementation of laws. Both statements and actions that deviate from community standards of conduct, embodied in the laws of the community, are subject to standards of justice, in the 'justice system'. But what is justice? What constitutes sound evidence? How do we say whether testimony is true of false? The law, the law, the law. [Insert preferred lawyer joke here.] But also, this is the stuff professional philosophers have claimed as their turf since time immemorial. (There was this fella, Socrates, who made philosophical arguments in a court of law. He was served a Hemlock Margarita for his efforts. By order of the court.)
Right now, today, across the US and around the world, individuals are awaiting execution because of morally suspect laws, faulty evidence, and specious arguments. Rights are under continuous attack. The very design, operation and purpose of systems of justice are the subject of violent dispute, and vicious argumentation.
These are things that should concern us all, including professional philosophers.
Th study and practice of argumentation matters. A lot.
At least if the focus of such study bears some relation to the real world, the lives of real people.
So maybe a little less abstruse and esoteric abstraction is in order. A little less inside baseball kibbitzing and club membership posturing.