Ran across a fun, old word (while reading The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary): misology 'dislike, distrust, or hatred of argument, reasoning or enlightenment'. In context, the authors were discussing misology as an antonym for one of the senses of philology.

Great word!

I wondered about a "hatred of argument" because some people don't like to argue. I don't equate arguing with reasoning, necessarily. However, the OED defines misology as a "hatred of reason or discussion; (also) hatred of learning or knowledge." That makes a little more sense to me.

like to argue

Yes, sadly, the early sense of argue had more to do with reasoning than anger. Remember all those Latin terms for logical fallacies: argumentum ad libitum et al.

Generally I would prefer not to argue; I do, though, love to debate. Sadly most differences of opinion end up as the former, not the latter.

I wish I could afford the OED

Dale,

It might be worth asking your local public library; many have a subscription for their readers.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
like to argue

Yes, sadly, the early sense of argue had more to do with reasoning than anger. Remember all those Latin terms for logical fallacies: argumentum ad libitum et al.

I think that you are right and that we should work to restore the word to its proper meaning. However, the culture has something to do with it. In today's America, no one wants to be adversarial, and debate type reasoning is necessarial adversarial at times, as issues have a pro and a con. People need to chill on their hyper-sensitivies or, to use my very favorite phrase in the entire language, just GET OVER IT. Then they wouldn't get angry in the first place.

Misology sounds to me like it should be the study of Japanese soup.

[hic runs for cover]

I actually thought it was the study of misers or being miserly.

I really should read the pun thread last, and then promise not to post until some hours later.

quote:

It might be worth asking your local public library; many have a subscription for their readers.

Yes, our Tinman alerted me to that, and it's how I access the online OED from home.

quote:

People need to chill on their hyper-sensitivies or, to use my very favorite phrase in the entire language, just GET OVER IT. Then they wouldn't get angry in the first place.

The problem is, Beth, that people are different. Very different. Like it or not, some people are more likely to be offended than others. I always think a moderate approach online is the way to go. No one wants to walk on eggs, but there is a long way between that and inflammatory posting.

quote:

Generally I would prefer not to argue; I do, though, love to debate.

Wasn't the point, though, that "argue" actually means to "debate?"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh, July 12, 2006 21:26

quote:

Wasn't the point, though, that "argue" actually means to "debate?"

Although the concepts are similar in that both refer to the discussion of difference, I consider debate to have strict rules - one of which is that the protagonists do not get overtly angry or personal.

In an argument anger and personal abuse are almost the norm.

In the recent discussion about the two main electricity supply voltages, it would be a debate if the supporters of both standards put forward their reasons as to why the one they support is better, and then allow each party to proffer facts to support their case.

In an argument unrelated facts (and often opinions) will be hurled to and fro, and personal abuse is common.

Although there have been some fairly intense debates on this board, there have been very few arguments - which is one reason why I like it. Boards where personal insults and invective are permitted do not see me for long.

It sounds like people in the past were much more polite than they are nowadays.

The modern-day youth are much ruder than in my young days... the world is going to the dogs... mutter... mutter... mutter...