emmanuel81
PG advocates for controversies that help find the truth. Thus he makes a difference between fallacies and real arguments. To Schopenhauer, real arguments are actually fallacies, because mere humans have other goals than the truth. Ironically, in http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html, PG followed Wittgenstein in that “most philosophical controversies are due to confusions over language”. In a philosophical context, at least, this should lead to a similar conclusion as Schopenhauer's.
Now, whether the case of philosophy should be extended to the rest of controversies is an interesting question. My answer would be yes. I wonder what PG would say. The fun part is that, whatever he says, Schopenhauer will still be right (look: he doesn't care of the truth, he just wants to win the argument!). That's the whole fun of controversies about controversy...
Ideas for new subjects:
- "google is dead";
- "how to fund painters";
- "all things considered, java rocks";
- "vaporware, or why I gave up arc";
- "return of the web 1.0"
There are plenty of weird ideas that only wait for PG to write clever stuff on them! Seriously, I don't know why people like FOWA, whoever that is, actually pay you to listen to the same old story...