Socratic Discussion of Justice

[shadewarttt 3,350]

So many keyboard warriors in this forum... Randomly smacking your keyboard with big and complex words doesn't make you king!

[GoldRock 6,165]

No, the fact that millions of reasonable, intelligent people have understood and agreed with a source doesn't necessitate its being true, just like the fact that most reasonable, intelligent people that know you would say you exist doesn't necessitate your existence. That's not the point. In attempting to point out a logical error in my argument (I was criticizing his non-logical criticism of the book), you commit a fallacy yourself: the red herring.

You were criticising his non-logical criticism. I was criticising your non-logical criticism. As I said before, I'm not going to respond to your arguments until you learn to set them forth in a respectful manner. If that means I commit a fallacy, then so be it - at least I admitted I was committing a fallacy, intentionally. You, on the other hand, do not seem to know whether or not you committed any fallacies yourself, or seem reluctant to admit it.

 

Moreover, your "argument from age" objection is completey invalid; I made no such claim in my criticism.

And here's where the reluctance to admit, or the desire to ignore, the fallacies in your previous arguments comes in. Here you go:

 

...I'd think twice before I criticized a book that has stood the test of time and received acclaim for the past 2500 years--a book that has shaped the minds and lives of Western civilization.

Example #1: Swami Patooty wrote, back in the 6th century, “To know oneself, is to one day self know.” You don’t find pearls like that today!

 

Explanation: There are many sayings today that are just as ambiguous, obscure, and non-sensical as the ones carved in stone 1500 years ago -- the difference is perception. Especially with “aged wisdom”, we tend to read in meaning to ambiguity where none exists or where the author’s intended meaning is impossible to know.

Spot any similarities?

 

Lastly, I don't act superior because I'm defending a weakness; I'm superior because there are no weaknesses in my arguments. Bring it on, kid.

I'm really sorry to have to break this to you, but logical fallacies do unfortunately constitute weaknesses in one's arguments. And judging from yet another irrelevant and derogatory reference to my age to add to your previous range of personal insults directed at myself and monkeyburn (the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem), you are not in short supply of them.

 

Do feel free to PM me if you want to learn more about 'logical fallacies'.

 

Otherwise, we can return to discussing the main subject of this topic, with little response being put forth to your arguments. Obviously, you can assume that's because they're flawless, but I hate to pop your bubble of superiority - we're not responding to your arguments precisely because the way in which you put them forth is fallacious, and so flawed.

[shadewarttt 3,350]

It would be nice if you guys typed these post in simple English that's easy to understand for the rest of the world...

[monkeyburn 13,522]

 

 

[Scribo 167]

You were criticising his non-logical criticism. I was criticising your non-logical criticism. As I said before, I'm not going to respond to your arguments until you learn to set them forth in a respectful manner. If that means I commit a fallacy, then so be it - at least I admitted I was committing a fallacy, intentionally. You, on the other hand, do not seem to know whether or not you committed any fallacies yourself, or seem reluctant to admit it.

 

 

And here's where the reluctance to admit, or the desire to ignore, the fallacies in your previous arguments comes in. Here you go:

 

 

Spot any similarities?

 

 

I'm really sorry to have to break this to you, but logical fallacies do unfortunately constitute weaknesses in one's arguments. And judging from yet another irrelevant and derogatory reference to my age to add to your previous range of personal insults directed at myself and monkeyburn (the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem), you are not in short supply of them.

 

Do feel free to PM me if you want to learn more about 'logical fallacies'.

 

Otherwise, we can return to discussing the main subject of this topic, with little response being put forth to your arguments. Obviously, you can assume that's because they're flawless, but I hate to pop your bubble of superiority - we're not responding to your arguments precisely because the way in which you put them forth is fallacious, and so flawed.

 

 

It's SO much fun playing with less intelligent people! Despite your threats to not reply to my disrespectful posts, you're still at it! (I do love this)

Why, if you are so concerned with logic, do you reply to my reply using a fallacy to supposedly point out another? That's the definition of illogical, kid. I don't see you admitting it anywhere either, as you arrogantly assert. The reference I made to the Republic was to its acclaim over the ages, not the age of the material itself. Certainly the raw age of a piece of literature does not in itself merit belief in that piece, but what DOES merit belief is when critics who are much more intelligent than me, let alone you (who claim to know better), praise the book and have done so for the past two and a half millenia. That's indisputable. If you want to go off on your own and say it's irrelevant, well good luck with that.

Please feel free to pick my arguments in search of errors and fallacies, and if you find one, state clearly and concisely how and why it's so. I'll be awaiting your response.

[electrogladiator 9]

Is this essay writing competition or something...Gosh!!

[GoldRock 6,165]

Despite your threats to not reply to my disrespectful posts, you're still at it! (I do love this)

This time, spot the difference between what you say I said, and what I actually said:

 

In any case, I would personally not respond to your arguments until...

...we're not responding to your arguments precisely because...

Moving on...

 

Why, if you are so concerned with logic, do you reply to my reply using a fallacy to supposedly point out another? That's the definition of illogical, kid. I don't see you admitting it anywhere either, as you arrogantly assert.

I already explained the logic behind doing so... I do not feel inclined to respond to your arguments. Logically, I would rather commit a fallacy than to respect your arguments by responding to them. Respect works two ways.

 

And if I say 'I'm not going to respond to your arguments' (yes, that last word doesn't look like 'posts' to me), and yet I still respond to your posts, then obviously I am admitting using the red herring fallacy. I would have thought that a person of 'superior intelligence' such as yourself would have understood what that inferred.

 

The reference I made to the Republic was to its acclaim over the ages, not the age of the material itself. Certainly the raw age of a piece of literature does not in itself merit belief in that piece, but what DOES merit belief is when critics who are much more intelligent than me, let alone you (who claim to know better), praise the book and have done so for the past two and a half millenia. That's indisputable. If you want to go off on your own and say it's irrelevant, well good luck with that.

Where on earth did I 'claim to know better'? Throwing in such comments, alongside your description of my assertion as 'arrogant', is rather hyprocritical, to say the least. I'm not the one here who keeps on emphasising his superiority, for starters. I wonder who that could be?

 

How would the fact that critics have praised something over the past 2,500 years make any difference? Surely if you weren't committing the argument from age fallacy, you'd just say "when critics praise the book", without the "for the past two and a half millenia" bit on the end? Why should the length of time for which the book has been acclaimed matter? Phrases such as "acclaimed over the ages" are good clues to such a fallacy, as they seem to imply that the length of time over which the book has been acclaimed actually matters, when it's in fact completely irrelevant. A critically-acclaimed book published 5 years ago is no less reliable or valid a source than a critically-acclaimed book from 2,500 years back.

 

And here I spot yet another logical fallacy, specifically when you say "critics who are much more intelligent than me, let alone you". That's a clear case of the fallacy of argumentum ab auctoritate, in that through deductive reasoning, you claim that the fact that critics acclaim the book merits belief in that book. Just because they would have more expertise in such an area, that doesn't mean that their acclaim for the book must be justified and correct.

 

Surely, the fact that such a book has been critically acclaimed for the past 2,500 is indisputable, I agree. Whether or not this is actually relevant seems to divide opinion here - yes, such facts mean that the book is probably more likely to have greater validity or reliability as a source. However, we're looking for hard evidence here as to why such a book is is definitely more valid or reliable, so yes, those facts seem irrelevant to me. Would the fact that scientific experts critically acclaimed pieces that stated the sun as going around the Earth for hundreds of years make those disproved works 'more valid'? No, because their critical acclaim through the ages did not constitute hard evidence.

 

Please feel free to pick my arguments in search of errors and fallacies, and if you find one, state clearly and concisely how and why it's so. I'll be awaiting your response.

- Argument from age - see above.

 

- Argumentum ad populum - quote below taken from one of your previous posts:

 

...a book that has shaped the minds and lives of Western civilization.

Here, you seem to be implying that the fact that a large number of lives were shaped by such a book makes it more valid. This, unfortunately, is not the case - just as one cannot use the fact that there are billions of religious believers in the world to state that "God must exist".

 

- Argument from authority - see above.

 

- Argumentum ad hominem - this is specifically of the 'abusive' type. I quote from Wikipedia: "Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy." There are numerous examples of you having done so:

 

Ouch indeed. Your grammar (or lack thereof) alone is worth that comment.

 

...I'm not entirely sure if you were speaking english in your last couple sentences...

...Speaking of nonsense, I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about when... If you had the first clue what you were talking about...

...Your argument is, apart from being a hodgepodge of grammatical errors...

Don't make assertions based on your feelings, kid; you'll just display your ignorance.

 

...there's nothing to debate with ignorant kids or incoherent dogmatists.

(I'm superior because there are no weaknesses in my arguments.) Bring it on, kid.

It's SO much fun playing with less intelligent people! ...That's the definition of illogical, kid.

Your extensive use of the abusive ad hominem fallacy is certainly indisputable. Monkeyburn's grammar was not perfect. Does that make his arguments less valid (i.e. is that relevant)? He's also an incoherent dogmatist, according to you. Is that relevant? I'm an "ignorant 'kid'", as you so frequently remind me. Is that relevant?

____________________

 

Let me ask you a serious question.

 

Guys. Respect. It goes a long way. Arrogance doesn't.

Were you the same person who wrote the above post? Or are you simply of the philosophy of 'preaching but not practising'?

Edited April 28, 2014 by GoldRock

[FaaiqBilal1 795]

How'd you write so much

[5556632_II 50]

spencer

[GoldRock 6,165]

How'd you write so much

Magic. 

[I.EatMyBullets 497]

Magic.

 

O.o

 

*gets some popcorn*

[Mr.SV.ENS 738]

English isn't my mothertongue and so many words in one post? I'll leave this topic  :blink:

Edited April 28, 2014 by Mr.SV.ENS

[FaaiqBilal1 795]

Sorry for necroposting, this was indeed an interesting topic and I would like to continue this topic. Bump! Please don't ban me, I felt that it was legit to bump it...

[GoldRock 6,165]

Sorry for necroposting, this was indeed an interesting topic and I would like to continue this topic. Bump! Please don't ban me, I felt that it was legit to bump it...

Why you bump this? :c But yeah, it was an interesting topic, just not when I was having to respond to @Scribo about it.

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

I suggest we move the topic on. Philosophy, anyone?

[GoldRock 6,165]

It's back! Well, I'm going to have to refresh my knowledge in this area a little... Which discussion area shall we move onto now?

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

I suggest moving back in time a bit to the pre-socratic philosophers. Let's take Heraclitus. Although we only have fragments of his writing, he seems to be saying (unlike his predecessors) that the universe is a sort of "unity of opposites". He gives us examples of the lyre, harp, and bow. He says that there are clearly opposite forces in these objects that, in pulling away from each other, create dynamic unities—unities through "strife". So, we can tentatively interpret Heraclitus' proposition (and please feel free to correct me if you think this is wrong, provided you've read him somewhat) to mean that if there is any perspective (e.g., being compared to Socrates) from which it is true to say of an object, x (say, Simmias), that it has property p (e.g., tallness), then there exists at least one other perspective, as legitimate as the first (e.g., being compared to Phaedo), from which it is true to say of x that it has property opposite-p (in the present case, shorness).

 

Does Heraclitus' thesis seem to be a necessary truth about (physical) objects and their properties? Why or why not?

[Scribo 167]

         Heraclitus proposes that there is no perspective from which we can say that an object is x to which there is not another perspective from which we can say the object is not-x. Moreover, he says that just as a bow is a unity through two opposing forces, so any object is a kind of unity of opposites: “What is opposed brings together; the finest harmony is composed of things at variance, and everything comes to be in accordance with strife” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8.2.1155b). However, is this a necessary truth about all objects?

 

         To attempt to answer this, we must first establish what an opposite is. The Pythagoreans, some 30 years before Heraclitus, made a list of ten opposites, which includes odd and even, right and left, good and evil. The Pythagoreans thought, as we do, that for every thing there was only one opposite. That is, unlike in a contradiction, where to contradict something (x) means to be anything whatsoever (not-x) except that thing which is being contradicted, the opposite (or contrary) of a thing seems to be that which pulls away from the thing it is the opposite of; it is the one thing on the other side of the spectrum. In other words, the contradictory of white (not-white) could be green, black, yellow, or any other color except white; the contrary of white, on the other hand, is the one thing that pulls away from it, which is black. So it seems Heraclitus is saying that all objects are a unity of of two things (of a multitude of opposites?) that pull away from each other; two things on opposite sides of the spectrum. And it is by the “strife” between these two contraries that the unity of a thing is realized. Heraclitus gives us the examples of a lyre and a bow. Clearly these objects function through the tension or “strife” of two sides pulling away from each other. But we must consider other things as well. Although we can determine perspectives for any object from which we can say contrary things about it, it seems that in many cases the object is not a unity because of the “strife” between the opposites we determine “in” it. For example, how is a chair or a book a unity through “strife”? Certainly they are big according to one perspective and small according to another, or strong compared to one thing but weak compared to another, but these opposites are not what make them function. What then is Heraclitus saying?

 

            When we say anything about an object based on a perspective, we are subjecting that object to the perspective. That is, we are asking something about an object in comparison or relation to another object (Is the book small or big in relation to the chair?). However, subjectively saying anything of an object does not seem to get at what that object really is. That is, saying something of an object based on a certain perspective does not make it necessarily so; just because I say the plate is small does not make its nature small. Thus, based on any perspective, we can say any number of things of any given object, yet none of them will be necessary truths, since they do not get at what the object really is. Objectively, we can say nothing of an object besides what that object is. A book is a book—it is objectively neither big nor small, strong nor weak, hard nor soft. Thus Heraclitus’ proposition seems to be based solely on subjectivism. Given, though, that we use subjective terms (which, though not necessary truths of the object, are nonetheless that by which we distinguish and relate to it) to know and interact with most objects, perhaps Heraclitus’ proposition is one that is getting at the way in which objects interact with us and other objects. The seawater is objectively neither poison nor life-giving, but subjectively, it is life-giving to the fish that live in and at the same time poisonous to humans. Thus it seems that if we look at Heraclitus’ “unity of opposites” proposition as the way in which objects subjectively interact with other things rather than a necessary objective truth of things, it will make more sense.