This nicely captures how many of us feel when faced with quarrels in the last section. And that gives us at least a very crude guideline for the search for verbal conflict, that is, that both sides feel they do not disagree. Unfortunately, the judgments on whether two parties actually disagree do not always come together, as evidenced by the species problem and the debate over the Theseus ship. Can we do better than what we intuitively feel for an argument? Ban now the “art” of discussion. Can we find another sentence on which A and B disagree? It doesn`t look like it – they both know it`s just a screenshot, that it was sold for an impressive price, and how many skills it takes to type those words with a keyboard or find the words. They are therefore involved in a purely verbal dispute. So who`s right and who`s wrong? In a way, both teachers are right because they seem to be working with two different definitions of “best students.” For Teacher A, the best student is the one with the highest average score. For Teacher B, the best student is someone with the highest number of A grades. Clearly, the student who meets the first definition should not be the same as the student who meets the second definition. This is an example of a purely verbal confrontation where the obvious disagreement is not due to a disagreement on the facts, but to a different understanding of the meaning of a key concept or concept. If this is true, much of the debate on the ontology and metaphysics of art is completely misdirected and relies on the confusion of semantic questions with factual questions. Many other debates could be in the same boat and should be abandoned instead of resolving them. But there are sometimes substantive quarrels nearby.
“What free will is,” for example, may be a purely verbal matter, but for any idea of free will, it may turn out to be a substantive issue, whether it is necessary for legal or perhaps moral liability. Can you give your own examples of factual and verbal conflicts? The philosopher David Chalmers gives the following approximate and finite characterization of verbal arguments: Step 1: the prohibition of the term T temporarily from your vocabulary. Step 2: Try to find a new sentence of S in the limited vocabulary, so that the parties are non-verbally divided on S`and that this disagreement is part of the controversy of S. Step 3: If there is such a sentence of S`, then the quarrel is not completely verbal, or at least there is a non-verbal dispute nearby. If Hume is right and makes many philosophical conflicts live, a lack of agreement on the meaning and use of words, it would be great to have some kind of tool to detect these verbal disputes, so that we can avoid them and focus on the real issues. This question has given rise to many metaphysical debates among some philosophers. But other philosophers and many non-philosophers have little patience for these questions. You are a blow to the verbal sophistry: we feel that we all know the facts, it is just a matter of deciding what exactly we hold under “identity” and how we want to describe those facts.