zlacker

Good faith argument has at no point in history required supporting an opposite proposition. “Taking a position and arguing it” is literally what an argument is. That is what the endeavor entails.

Anything else is just aesthetics and personal preference

>>jrflow+(OP)
So, to recap, your gripe, with my gripe, is that I hold the author to aesthetic standards that differ from your own—and that that’s… wrong? Do I have that right?

I ask genuinely. I want to understand your position better here.

>>liamwi+o1
I think it’s silly to confuse aesthetic preference with the difference between good and bad faith argumentation. Like if you insist that someone painstakingly take the time and effort to convince you that they don’t have an opinion on a topic while trying to convey their opinion about a topic, that’s so absurd that it itself borders on a bad faith request.

Also my original gripe was very clear. “Are you trying to convince yourself?” indicates that the author didn’t believe what they wrote. And your reasoning here for mentioning that is that they wrote it. It is a no-win scenario in which another person literally couldn’t hold an opinion that doesn’t conform to your aesthetic. That is insane!

>>jrflow+(OP)
Agree, that is not required. It is an Essay after all.

That said, I disagree with the idea that it’s merely about aesthetics.(Hegel’s dialectic, for example, isn’t just a stylistic choice — its structure actively shapes meaning and allows for a better synthesis.)

I don't think the author wants to engage and have meaningful conversations, his position is clear.

A meaningful conversation - at least how i see it -, involves acknowledging both the pros and cons of any position. Even if you believe the pros outweigh the cons — which is a subjective judgment — you should still be able to clearly enumerate the cons. That’s is an analytical approach.