Constructing arguments

[jack]

I'm still not good at constructing explanations. I wasn't sure what people's response to the morning's philosophy would be, if any, but it seemed overwhelmed by my second paragraph, the one about morals, which was supposed to be incidental.

I was trying to talk about the assumptions I hadn't really thought about in those terms (in bold) and in preface tried to describe assumptions I'd previously talked about. Because (a) to make people aware of my thoughts and (b) prevent anyone thinking I wasn't aware, and that distracting from the argument I was trying to make.

But the preface seemed to stand out. Did I particularly give the impression that I *was* a utilitarian? I think it's a good approximation, but insufficient to subscribe to it. If I'd given more examples would I have been less distracting or more so?

Should I stop introspecting about it and accept you can never predict what people will find interesting? Should I cut down my tendency to ramble? Should I make the point I'm trying to make more directly with justification afterwards? How about a Q&A format?

Do you think about the layout when you're musing on LJ, or just write it out?

Comments

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Would it help if I typed up the passage that it was based on? That might put it in a context...

Learning, knowing understanding more is beneficial and aesthetically pleasing.

Where does that take you then? I would guess that it becomes a question of the nature of truth, and where it has its locus.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I was more intrigued with discovering my assumptions than with what they were (my phrasing was an approximation) -- that's kind of an instance of that very thing, isn't it :)

No, I've no idea where I'm going with it. What do you mean about the nature of truth?