The Best Arguments of All Time: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Best Arguments of All Time » The Best Arguments of All Time

The Best Arguments of All Time
Give us your best arguments

Page: 1 2 3

The Best Arguments of All Time

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 05/04/08 - 07:53 AM:	#26
Presumably JAC's meant to set X=existence of something and Y=its definability. The general inference is not valid, but as 7 points out the argument becomes valid since P2 implies C as existence is tautologically true for everything including g. The validity of P2 is questionable though as it presupposes something exists (g). The discussion leader has put forth a valid argument, but G1 and G2 are not valid, and while G2 is obviously true G1 is not and could be questioned.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/04/08 - 10:39 PM:	#27
The way to formalize SIR2U's is with a free logic, which is a logic in which the existential quantifier has existential import, but the constants do not. After all in ordinary language we use constants that do not designate an existent. The argument can be formalized as P1) Ax[Ey(y = x) -> Dx] / "it is true of everything that: if it exists, then it is definable" P2) D(g) / "god is definable" C) Ey(y = g) / "god exists" Is this valid? Make all of the premises true and the conclusion false. There are no rules to apply. Both P1 and the negated conclusion (~Ey(y = g)) are universal formulas. In free logic, you can only universally instantiate to constants that denote and I have no way to know that g denotes. The existential quantifier ranges over existents, so if I got g from existential instantiation, then I would know that it exists. But this is not the case. You can't even get Ex(Dx). Edited by 7 on 05/04/08 - 10:45 PM

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/05/08 - 05:45 AM:	#28
why is the 1st premise true? I am not sure I understand the question. Consider the following statements: E1. If Emily can see her back yard, she can see a lilac bush. Why is this statement true? E2. If one visits Paris, France, one will be in the city where the Eiffel Tower is located. Why is E2 true? E3. If Paris is the capital of France, then there are human beings. Why is E3 true? Maybe if you answer these, I will have some idea of what you mean by your question. (maybe). Emily

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/05/08 - 05:57 AM:	#29
The discussion leader has put forth a valid argument, but G1 and G2 are not valid, and while G2 is obviously true G1 is not and could be questioned. When you say that G1 and G2 are not valid, do you mean they are not logical truths? If that is what you mean, you are correct. You say that G1 is not obviously true. A number of questions suggest themselves to me at this point. (i) Not obvious to whom? (ii) What criteria for "obviously true" are you using? (iii) Are you suggesting that the definition of "sound argument" be modified from "all true premises" to "all obviously true premises"? (iv) "I can benchpress more than most men" could be questioned. I am not clear about what your remark that G1 could be questioned is supposed to show/do. Could you elaborate. Emily

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/05/08 - 06:16 AM:	#30
Emily wrote: I am not sure I understand the question. Consider the following statements: E1. If Emily can see her back yard, she can see a lilac bush. Why is this statement true? I have no idea whether it's true or not. E2. If one visits Paris, France, one will be in the city where the Eiffel Tower is located. Why is E2 true? Because the Eiffel Tower is located in Paris. E3. If Paris is the capital of France, then there are human beings. Why is E3 true? If you mean to ask me "why is this material conditional true?" the answer is because both the antecedent and consequent are true, and a truth table will tell you that this evaluates to a true conditional. Maybe if you answer these, I will have some idea of what you mean by your question. (maybe). Emily I highly doubt that I will see anything resembling a convincing defense of your position. I doubt that you will even try, since I think you're trolling. Unless your next post is better, I will not reply again.

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 05/05/08 - 06:24 AM:	#31
(i) Admittably the word is a bit ambigous, but I'm using it in an objective sense. (ii) I thought it would be obvious what the word means. I don't need to explain something that is obviously true, because most people would accept it as fact. If it is not obvious, then anyone who cares to would ask for an explanation. (iii) Not really, however if you argue that it is sound, and ask others to agree with you, then you would be better of giving an explanation for the unobvious premises. (iv) Anything not obviously true can be questioned, in which case the soundness of the entire argument is questioned.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/05/08 - 08:13 AM:	#32
keda wrote: (i) Admittably the word is a bit ambigous, but I'm using it in an objective sense. I am unclear as to what this means as an answer to my question "Not obvious to whom?". (ii) I thought it would be obvious what the word means. I don't need to explain something that is obviously true, because most people would accept it as fact. If it is not obvious, then anyone who cares to would ask for an explanation. I know what the word means. If the fact that most people accept something as fact is a sufficient condition for "obviously true", then the first premise is obviously true (iii) Not really, however if you argue that it is sound, and ask others to agree with you, then you would be better of giving an explanation for the unobvious premises. But I haven't argued that the argument is sound. It has been offered as a sound argument. If the conditions on sound argument have been satisfied, then it is a sound argument; if not, then not. If you don't know that the conditions have been satisfied, then you don't know that it is a sound argument. But, your lack of knowledge doesn't have any bearing on the soundness of the argument, does it? If you think the conditions on soundness have not been satisfied, nothing you have said indicates why you think this. (iv) Anything not obviously true can be questioned, in which case the soundness of the entire argument is questioned. I will leave this one until later, for (dare I say it) obvious reasons. Emily

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/05/08 - 08:33 AM:	#33
E2. If one visits Paris, France, one will be in the city where the Eiffel Tower is located. Why is E2 true? Because the Eiffel Tower is located in Paris. If your response explains why E2 is true, then the following response should explain why G1 is true-- "Because the existence of anything depends upon the existence of God" E3. If Paris is the capital of France, then there are human beings. Why is E3 true? If you mean to ask me "why is this material conditional true?" the answer is because both the antecedent and consequent are true, and a truth table will tell you that this evaluates to a true conditional. I am not sure what to make of this answer. I'll make a couple of remarks, maybe relevant, maybe not. A material conditional statement is true when the antecedent is true and the consequent is true, but it is also true whenever the antecedent is false. You probably now this, and it is irrelevant anyhow. BUT, if explaning why it is true can be accomplished by saying that the antecedent is true and the consequent is true (when they are true), then I can explain G1 in the same way mutatis mutandis. The antecedent of G1 is true and so is the consequent. If yours is an explanation, then so is mine. I highly doubt that I will see anything resembling a convincing defense of your position. I doubt that you will even try, since I think you're trolling. . I am more than happy to defend my position, but I am genuinely unclear as what position you think I am defending here. What position do you take me to be defending here? Can we agree that nothing you have said is even an attempt to undermine the soundness of the argument? Unless your next post is better, I will not reply again I will try to reply to yours no matter what the quality, as long as you are not rude. Emily

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/05/08 - 10:07 PM:	#34
Hey Emily, you sound smart. Intellectually intimidating even. I hope 7 will not be rude because I would like to read your reply.

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/05/08 - 10:24 PM:	#35
yiming wrote: Hey Emily, you sound smart. Intellectually intimidating even. I hope 7 will not be rude because I would like to read your reply. You're too easily impressed. In any case, there won't be a response because I'm going to stick to my promise. I can tell when someone is jerking me around for the hell of it. I will not engage with those who debate in bad faith. Edited by 7 on 05/05/08 - 10:29 PM

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/05/08 - 10:33 PM:	#36
Hey 7, you think Emily is jerking you around? But she is a girl. No girl would jerk anyone around. Only guys are capable of mischief. Anyway, I will watch her. If she jerks you around we will both go after her. Ok?

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/05/08 - 10:45 PM:	#37
yiming wrote: Hey 7, you think Emily is jerking you around? But she is a girl. No girl would jerk anyone around. Only guys are capable of mischief. Anyway, I will watch her. If she jerks you around we will both go after her. Ok? This thread is about the best arguments, not the nature of truth. Emily has attempted to sidetrack the discussion into truth. This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to avoid having to defend the argument. Think about it for a moment. Imagine that someone makes an argument, then you question one of the premises, and rather than defending the premise, the person pretends not to understand the question and asks what it is for a statement to be true. I think you'd see that as arguing in bad faith, too. After all, the person said that the argument is sound. If it's not clear to him why the premises are true or what it is for them to be true, he ought not have claimed the argument sound. Soundness presupposes truth.

Clarky
Metal Head

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Location: Melbourne
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/06/08 - 05:57 AM:	#38
"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am" - René Descartes I'm quite sure I exist. If not in the physical sense, my Consciousness or mental existence is real... but then... what is real... DAMN YOU PHILOSOPHY!
_____________________ "Never do anything you'll regret, and never regret anything you do... that way, you're fail-safe" - Me

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/06/08 - 09:10 AM:	#39
7 wrote: This thread is about the best arguments, not the nature of truth. Emily has attempted to sidetrack the discussion into truth. This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to avoid having to defend the argument. Think about it for a moment. Imagine that someone makes an argument, then you question one of the premises, and rather than defending the premise, the person pretends not to understand the question and asks what it is for a statement to be true. I think you'd see that as arguing in bad faith, too. After all, the person said that the argument is sound. If it's not clear to him why the premises are true or what it is for them to be true, he ought not have claimed the argument sound. Soundness presupposes truth. Actually 7 is a bit confused, I think. I am not trying to sidetrack the discussion into truth. I am trying to keep the discussion focused on the argument, offered as a sound argument for the existence of God. I am perfectly willing to defend the argument, but I don’t want to play the discussion board game of “prove that there is a God”, “now prove that premise 1 of that argument is true”, “now prove that premise 1 of the argument to prove that (the earlier) premise 1 is true”, and so on. Neither do I want to get involved in another discussion-board-discsussion in which the opposition says that they want a proof (sound argument) for the existence of God, when what they want is an argument that they find convincing, having given no one any idea of what they will find convincing and what they won’t find convincing. 7 apparently misreads or misunderstands, saying that I have asked what it is for a statement to be true. I asked for an explanation of an oddly phrased question that 7 put up. That question was “Why is the first premise true?” I really didn’t know what to make of this question. Often, in response to an argument put up for consideration, it will be asked, “What evidence is there for premise n?”. This latter question can be (it need not be) a diversionary tactic, an attempt to shift the focus of the discussion from the soundness of the original argument to a discussion that has the original promulgator trying to convince the questioner that the argument is sound. In this latter enterprise, the discussion will be limited, of course, by what the objector knows. But this latter question is not the question 7 asked. I am trying to keep the discussion focused on the argument by preventing it from becoming a discussion of what 7 thinks of the argument. In addition, I assume that this thread was intended to be more than just a list of what person a happens to think is the best argument, what person b happens to think is the best argument,... and so on. I am not trying to jerk 7 (or anyone else ) around. But I don’t want spend time on the same tedious steps that are so often taken in these online discussion board discussions. Needless to say, whether or not 7 responds is up to 7. But if all 7 is going to do is re-issue a bunch of (implicit or explicit)“show me” - type responses, there is no point. Emily

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 138

Posted 05/06/08 - 12:08 PM:	#40
Okay, I believe in God and am a Christian, but I'm not sure what you are trying to do: Emily wrote: ...a sound argument as an argument that has all premises true and is valid... Emily wrote: G1. If something exists, then God exists. G1 needs to be both true and valid to fit the definition of a sound argument that you put forth. I agree that God exists.... but what reason can you provide for somebody to accept G1 as a true and valid premise?

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/06/08 - 11:51 PM:	#41
7 apparently misreads or misunderstands, saying that I have asked what it is for a statement to be true. I asked for an explanation of an oddly phrased question that 7 put up. That question was “Why is the first premise true?” I really didn’t know what to make of this question. Often, in response to an argument put up for consideration, it will be asked, “What evidence is there for premise n?”. Obviously, what I was asking is "what evidence is there for premise n?" Don't be obtuse. This latter question can be (it need not be) a diversionary tactic, an attempt to shift the focus of the discussion from the soundness of the original argument to a discussion that has the original promulgator trying to convince the questioner that the argument is sound. It is not a diversionary tactic to ask someone to provide evidence for a premise used in an argument that the person has pronounced sound. Presumably, that person has reasons for thinking the premises true, so he is expected to articulate them. You have not attempted to articulate your reasons, so it is mysterious to us why you think your argument sound. But if all 7 is going to do is re-issue a bunch of (implicit or explicit)“show me” - type responses, there is no point. You're supposed to be able to show me. Certainly, I should not be expected to accept your premises on faith. I need you to tell me why I should accept them. P.S. I'm not going to bicker with you anymore. I am going to remain silent until you justify your premises.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 05/07/08 - 06:56 PM:	#42
P1: If people jerk other people around they will not talk to them P2: You jerked someone around C: They won't talk to you
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Individual
Existentialist Buddhist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 41

Posted 05/07/08 - 10:40 PM:	#43
coolazice wrote: This post is dedicated to a very simple idea that has plagued me during my studies in philosophy. It seems that a great deal of philosophy is devoted to showing why arguments do not work - how the premises are suspect, or the argumentative logic invalid. Great philosophers such as Plato, who tried to escape the non-resolved Socratic dialogues by positing positive theories, have had their ideas torn to pieces by successive generations of clever people working in Universities and indeed by subsequent great philosophers. Which somewhat depresses me. Aren't there some philosophical arguments, any arguments, which we can pretty reliably apply to reality, in other words, stuff that's just true no matter how you look at it? So, with everyone's co-operation and guidance, I have decide to create this topic for anybody to post any philosophical argument that they have personally found to be the most logically satisfying - a sort of 'Best Arguments of All Time' or 'The Answers to Philosophy'. These arguments should preferably be those of a famous philosopher, but you can provide your own if you seriously think they're good. But, for the sake of addressing the issue, and to avoid silliness, there need to be a few rules. 1: Please make sure the argument is a 'positive' one - for example, it is not an argument which successfully explains why Plato's theory of forms is incorrect. This is what I am trying to avoid. I want arguments that show that something is true, not ones that show that it is true that something is false (if this goes well, I might create that thread later). On the other hand, make sure it's a philosophical argument that isn't obviously true (apples exist, or something like that). 2: Please post the argument in the following form: P1: Proposition P2: Proposition 2 C: Conclusion (from P1 and P2) You can be fancier than this (definitions, lemmas, etc.), but keep it to one line per point, and explanations of how you deducted something. So yes, deductive arguments only, unless it is extremely clear that a non-deductive argument works. 3: Try to conceive of counter-arguments, and work out why these don't work (if they do work, don't post the original argument!) 4. If you see a flaw in someone else's best argument, feel free to point it out (this is the only kind of 'non-positive' argument that goes on here). I hope that this project is not seen as silly or frivolous - some of you may think that there are no arguments that can avoid serious flaws. But it's worth giving it a shot. I'm interested to see how some of you respond. Please post your cast-iron-strong arguments below. A student asked a Zen master, "What is the first principle of Buddhism?" The Zen master replied, "If I told you, it would be the second principle!" So, here is my argument: P1: (purposely left blank) P2: A=A C: A!=B All arguments could be picked apart by demonstrating the fact that they begin with circular logic: called tautologies, axioms, etc.. Once these are developed, it contradictorily establishes "circular reasoning is illogical," as a true statement. And this is even more peculiar, because non-contradiction is itself an axiom. Logic is a language of thought which has emerged from human experience and refined our knowledge. It is not like magic, that we can investigate its most core aspects in order to find ultimate meaning. The foundation for our knowledge flows from our intuition, self-confidence, and experience. There is no syntax which could ever be flawless. All logic, at any given point, could always be further refined. If you keep looking for that one core statement of truth, the one real truth, the ultimate meaning of everything, you won't find anything but an endlessly empty hole, something to keep searching through. And that endless emptiness is the ultimate meaning of everything, it is something continually sought for and never found, but always present.

Lauri
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/11/08 - 02:31 AM:	#44
P1: God is perfect. P2: One can not see God or touch him. C: Therefore, as something what you can touch and feel is more real than something you can't - God is not perfect.

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/12/08 - 03:51 AM:	#45
It is not a diversionary tactic to ask someone to provide evidence for a premise used in an argument that the person has pronounced sound. Presumably, that person has reasons for thinking the premises true, so he is expected to articulate them. You have not attempted to articulate your reasons, so it is mysterious to us why you think your argument sound. I am "expected to articulate them" in order to accomplish what? The argument is sound whether or not I articulate any reasons. Moreover, my knowledge that it is sound doesn't depend on my articulating any reasons for thinking that the premises are true. Why do you think it mysterious as to why I think the argument is sound? Unless, of course, all you mean is that you don't know if the argument is sound or not, and since you don't know, I don't know. You're supposed to be able to show me. Certainly, I should not be expected to accept your premises on faith. I need you to tell me why I should accept them. "Supposed to be able to show you"? And if I do not, what follows apart from Emily didn't show 7 that the premises are true. A question: If I produce a sound argument that has as its conclusion, "If something exists, then God exists", will that satisfy you? Or can I/we expect that you will likely ask for the evidence that one (or more) of the premises in that argument. It would really be interesting if you could explain why you think it is mysterious that I think the argument is sound. is it because you think I don't/can't know that the premises are true? If so, why would you think that? Surely not merely because I haven't shown you that they are true. I am going to remain silent until you justify your premises. If all you mean by "justify" is "convince you", you might as well remain silent. There is nothing philosophically interesting, or important, to be gained by convincing 7 that the premises of the argument are true. Maybe another related line of discussion will pique your interest. I assume that you will acknowledge that nothing said by you (or anyone else) has shown that the argument is unsound. Nothing said by you (or anyone else) has shown that I don't know that it is sound. So far as anything you have said is concerned, your position is not the very popular "There are no proofs for the existence of God". Just what is your view with respect to whether or not there are proofs for the existence of God, or with respect to the question of whether or not anyone knows that there is a God. Emily

Emily
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/12/08 - 03:51 AM:	#46
Double post-- sorry! Do others find the server for this board to be very, very slow?

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 05/12/08 - 05:02 AM:	#47
It's faster than I can think. So, yes, it's probably quite slow. ****** If Emily's argument is sound, then it's sound whether or not she defends it. If the premises are true and the conclusion follows from them, then the argument is sound, regardless of whether or why Emily or anyone else believes or understands any of it. If Emily is unwilling or unable to articulate any justification for believing the premises and has no interest in persuading 7 or anyone else of anything at all, those facts tell us nothing about the soundess of the argument. ***** However: is it sound? Are the premises true? ***** It would be self-contradictory to assert both of these: - If something exists, then God exists It's not the case that, if something exists, then God exists. So it's reasonable to assert at most one and possibly neither. But, if either, which? Suppose God exists: the first is true, and the second false. Suppose God doesn't exist but something else does: the second is true and first is false. Now, 'God exists' is the conclusion of the argument. If we only knew whether God exists, we would be able to judge the truth of the premises from which that conclusion is derived. That is, the truth of the premises depends upon the truth of the conclusion. So the argument begs the question. The question being: does God exist? ***** Now, question-begging arguments can be sound. And, if God exists, then Emily's argument is sound. But, if he doesn't, then it isn't. If may be that question-begging arguments feature amongst the 'best arguments of all time'. But then I wonder what the 'worst' arguments are. Edited by Cuthbert on 05/12/08 - 05:46 AM

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/12/08 - 05:46 AM:	#48
7 wrote: Obviously, what I was asking is "what evidence is there for premise n?" Don't be obtuse. … It is not a diversionary tactic to ask someone to provide evidence for a premise used in an argument that the person has pronounced sound. Presumably, that person has reasons for thinking the premises true, so he is expected to articulate them. You have not attempted to articulate your reasons, so it is mysterious to us why you think your argument sound. … You're supposed to be able to show me. Certainly, I should not be expected to accept your premises on faith. I need you to tell me why I should accept them. Exactly. Emily wrote: I am "expected to articulate them" in order to accomplish what? In order to demonstrate compelling reason for rational people to accept your claim that your argument is sound. Emily wrote: The argument is sound whether or not I articulate any reasons. Moreover, my knowledge that it is sound doesn't depend on my articulating any reasons for thinking that the premises are true. … "Supposed to be able to show you"? And if I do not, what follows apart from Emily didn't show 7 that the premises are true. What follows is that your have provided no reason for rational people to accept your claim that your argument is sound, you’ve merely made an assertion, an unsupported claim. It’s easy to do make claims. The point of argument and related discussion is to provide compelling reason for rational people to accept your claim as true. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument FSM1. If something exists, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. FSM2. Something exists. ---- FSM3. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If people dispute the truth of a premise, then the validity of your logic alone has no power whatsoever to compel rational people to accept your conclusion as true. And since the whole point of an argument is to provide compelling reason for rational people to accept your conclusion as true, then your argument has failed completely. Cuthbert wrote: It's faster than I can think. So, yes, it's probably quite slow. Ha! Yes. And perhaps the slowness discourages some text messaging, chat-room-ish firing from the hip and encourages exchanges that are somewhat more reflective? Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 05/12/08 - 05:59 AM:	#49
I don't think there are any- apart from those necessarily true arguments: socrates being a man etc., In such examples we are referring to the meaning of the words- semantically, 'Socrates' cannot be anything but a man we use as the reference. So, the argument is valid (and sound, in this instance) simply through the use of certain concepts. Another argument comes from Descartes "I think there...." (Cogito argument). Descartes built this classic (and valid) argument using two different concepts "I think" and "I am" - but this argument lacks soundness as "I think" and "I am" are the same thing (see Kant).
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

silverback
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/12/08 - 07:30 AM:	#50
P1: You can change the world by being the change you want to see in the world. P2: The natural world is healthy and the unnatural world is unhealthy. P3: Men's natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart. So its our addictions that cause our troubles and collective unhealthiness. P4: Nietzsche said good and evil does not exist, He was wrong as it exists in the minds of those who believe it to be true and as a falsehood in those who do not , However healthy and unhealthy does exist for all people. Good and evil is a duality, healthy and unhealthy is not as you can have health without unhealth. P5: Some dualities do exist , some are healthy some are not. The true ones are good for us. The false ones are not. P6: Health can be equated with truth and unhealth with lies. P7: Our true nature is centered and connected, our false nature is decentralized and disconnected. C: We can change ourselves back to our true nature and solve all our troubles by being healthy and identifying false dualities like good and evil. Our true nature is healthy which is not a duality even though dualities exist around that nature. The real obstacle is our addiction to lies and unhealthy pursuits which is not our true nature and only serve to obstruct our true nature. In our true centered state there is only healthy duality , but in our disconnected state there is dual dualities of both good and bad dualities. LOL Edited by silverback on 05/12/08 - 07:39 AM. Reason: speelling

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.