Hi anons, I have noticed something that most philosophers I know of are not talking about, at least resembling the way I am going to.
This has become increasingly obvious to the point of being quite painful to watch, every time it happens.
First I'm gonna lay out two concepts, and with every word I am using, I am not referring to the academic definition of that word, I'm going with common dictionary definitions.
Now, as I see it, there are two ways or techniques that people have argued a point in the past, and continue, to this day. The problem is that one of these has been used, in recent times, to a point of extreme unbalance.
The first way of arguing, I'll call something like foundationalism, or constructionism.
In this method, a person starts with the most simple, applicable, and prominent aspects of reality. In this method, a person uses truisms, laws of the universe, and very simple and effective reason to make their argument. They start with simple concepts, where there can really be no misinterpretation of meaning, and every concept they introduce is resting of the foundation of principles and laws that are so simple as to be common sense, or unmistakable. Any higher level concepts they introduce, any higher levels of abstraction, must rest firmly on these common sense principles and laws, and be clearly defined by these unmistakable terms.
In this way, the argument is constructed like a pyramid, with every level firmly resting and being supported by every layer below it, and every next higher layer is set upon the existing solid proofed structure, and is placed in a meaningful and supportive way, as an architect would be planning what he can put on the next story up, given what supports and walls and utilities are directly below it. In this way, the method builds layer upon sodlid layer, until eventually reaching the cap stone, the pinnacle of the argument.
The other method is quite easier to explain, because of how loose it is. This method I would call something like unconstructionism, or uber conceptualism.
In this method, which it seems the vast majority of academics use, a person is assumed to know common sense, so the professor introduces a term or concept which is at a very high level of abstraction. The professor then builds downward from that concept, down to the undeniable foundation of natural laws. The capstone of the argument is placed first, and then every layer below it is justified as being there because it is in line with the capstone. This method does not much take into consideration what the topograpy of the actual physical ground is, beneath where they have suspended their capstone. When arguments are made using this method, a person will start out with, say, a 10th level abstraction in their head, and go about trying to prove that seemingly true 10th level abstraction using concepts which are 9th and 8th and 7th level abstractions. This method can be useful sometimes, because when one finds that no matter how the structure beneath the capstone is built, the capstone can not be properly upheld, one will know that the capstone must be moved first.
The obvious problem with the second method is that you are using high level abstractions, abstractions which the definition cannot even be agreed upon, in order to prover even higher level abstractions with even less agreement and perception of what those actually are and mean.
liberaltard, and libertariatards, seem to use method number two all the time, which is why everything that comes out of their mouths makes about as much realistic sense as physiology and physics do in looney toons.
Question:
Do these two concepts actually already have names? Have people talked about his before? Has an academic or intellectual already identified this dichotomy, and described in in far greater detail that I?