Scoundrel on Nostr: Thank you for your explanation of dialectics. I had no idea that's what it meant. ...

Thank you for your explanation of dialectics. I had no idea that's what it meant. Your explanation is very helpful.

You claim that necessary perspective can always be acquired in a good faith engagement, but I am genuinely baffled by this position. Where are all of these relevant ideas that neither had going to come from? If one person argues that P=NP and one person argues that P=/=NP, and their discussion is long enough and good faith enough then will one of them magically acquire the proof of their position? I'm convinced you don't believe that. Is there another way for them to resolve their disagreement? Maybe you should be the one to tell me, in my example, is there an obstacle preventing them from acquiring the perspective that allows them to resolve their disagreement?

You claim that it's impossible for someone to know whether they have a piece of reasoning that can't be explained. But that seems really simple to me. If someone tries to come up with a good justification for one of their conclusions and they don't... then isn't that proof that they can't do it right now? And isn't that a good reason for them to leave the argument?

You are 100% correct when you say that if someone has a fully sound logical and evidentiary basis for a belief then they will always have a response in an argument. (Well, assuming they are articulate enough to properly express their response to the other person.) However this is a very high standard for having a discussion. Do you have rigorous logical and mathematical definitions for every word you use in an argument? (Good life goal though, I approve.) Do you have empirical studies demonstrating every little tiny piece of common knowledge that both people already agree on anyway? Nobody does.

Ironically, the best way to develop a really strong foundation for one's arguments is to lower one's standards and to increase the amount of imperfect arguments one has. Always conceding incompleteness, abstaining from maintaining a position, and proceeding to disengage is the worst possible way for someone to formulate a better position in the long run.