The Best Arguments of All Time: Philosophy Forums

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

The Best Arguments of All Time

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The Best Arguments of All Time

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/19/08 - 05:59 PM:	#61
Corit Demus wrote: This is interesting. I came up with this (not sure if it's correct though): 1. I think, therefore I am. Since when is existence defined by thought? Rocks don't think but most people would agree they probably exist. Also, prove you 'think'. 2. I can never know anything about the world for sure, except #1. If number 1 is the ONLY thing you know for certain, then you do not know #2 for certain (since #2 is not #1), and since you do not know #2 for certain you don't necessarily even know #1 for certain. IC1. My thoughts are the only thing that I can be sure exists. How can you be so sure your thoughts exist? Just because you are 'experiencing them'? I experience things that don't exist (assumingly don't exist) when I dream. Perhaps thought itself is merely a complex hallucination that isn't real. IC2. I can never know whether I can think rationally, I might or I might not. How do you know those are the only two options? 'Might or might not'? 3. If I can not think rationally, this argument is senseless. It might be senseless either way 4. If this argument is senseless, I would not matter if it was incorrect Matter is an awefully relative term. 5. I can think rationally. Not necessesarily. 6. If #5 is false, this argument is incorrect. Unless you elimnate 6 as a possibility, your conclusion is assumed. 7. If #5 is false, this argument is senseless (from #3). IC3. If #5 is false, it would not matter (from #4). C. I can think rationally. Your conclusion is assumed.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/19/08 - 11:01 PM:	#62
Since when is existence defined by thought? Rocks don't think but most people would agree they probably exist. Also, prove you 'think'. 1. If some has a property, it exist (Instantiation principle). 2. I/it is thinking (whatever that may be). C. I/it exists (in whatever way). If number 1 is the ONLY thing you know for certain, then you do not know #2 for certain (since #2 is not #1), and since you do not know #2 for certain you don't necessarily even know #1 for certain. Let me rephrase: I can never know whether anything really exists, except #1. How can you be so sure your thoughts exist? Just because you are 'experiencing them'? I experience things that don't exist (assumingly don't exist) when I dream. Perhaps thought itself is merely a complex hallucination that isn't real. The fact that you are experiencing them means there must be something doing the observing. I'm calling those my thoughts. How do you know those are the only two options? 'Might or might not'? Again let me first rephrase: I can not know whether I can reason rationally correct now (for the length of the argument), I might or I might not. Then, the validity of the first part of the sentence if binary (i.e. only two options), true or false. I agree this cuts down the conclusion somewhat :/ Matter is an awefully relative term. As in make a difference. For the rest let me just say: I was trying to prove that you can always assume you can reason correctly in an argument, because if you couldn't, they argument would be senseless (thus making the fact the fact that you incorrectly assumed you were rational not matter). I don't know how I would need to put it though .

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 05/19/08 - 11:29 PM:	#63
If it were the case that all our reasoning is mistaken, then we could not suppose it to be the case. If we could never reason, then we could not understand what reasoning is. So the supposition that we cannot reason would be beyond our powers of reasoning, which ex hypothesi do not exist. So to say 'All our reasoning is mistaken' is self-defeating. But it's always possible that some particular parts of our reasoning are at fault and we may collectively fail to identify some of those faulty parts. For example, the argument of the last paragraph - or of this one - might be invalid. I don't think we can assume that we can always reason correctly. In fact, it seems that sometimes we can't and that we will occasionally fail to see the faults in our own reasoning on occasion. We aren't infallibly rational, but it doesn't seem possible to suppose that we are universally irrational.

7
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 337

Posted 05/20/08 - 01:15 AM:	#64
Corit Demus wrote: This is interesting. I came up with this (not sure if it's correct though): 1. I think, therefore I am. 2. I can never know anything about the world for sure, except #1. IC1. My thoughts are the only thing that I can be sure exists. IC2. I can never know whether I can think rationally, I might or I might not. 3. If I can not think rationally, this argument is senseless. 4. If this argument is senseless, I would not matter if it was incorrect 5. I can think rationally. 6. If #5 is false, this argument is incorrect. 7. If #5 is false, this argument is senseless (from #3). IC3. If #5 is false, it would not matter (from #4). C. I can think rationally. Your 5th premise and your conclusion are the same statement.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 05/20/08 - 02:00 AM:	#65
I think it's intended to be a modus tollens but it's not laid it out too clearly: If I can't think rationally, then this argument is senseless This argument is not senseless So I can think rationally I thought it was question-begging, but I don't think so now - just a layout issue.

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/20/08 - 07:48 AM:	#66
how about this... --if humans need to teach the names and attributes of things to their young, then they must of had previous information to know this knowledge in the first place. Knowledge is passed on, but also created. Each generation add a bit to the knowledge and passes it on. --if we go back far enough, who/what taught humans the name and attributes of things. Going back, the knowledge shrinks and can be traced back to 'zero'. --the creator of man taught man to teach man As shown, premises are false, and even if they were correct, this does not follow logically from the premises. One might just as well have put 'a pink dinosaur told them'. http://islamexplained.blogspot.com/ Spam/Advertising.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 05/20/08 - 09:23 AM:	#67
SIR2U wrote: P1: Everything that exists is definable(even if we do not know of its existence now, it will be when we discover it) P2: God is definable. (look in any dictionary) C: Therefore, God does exist. JAC wrote: You have affirmed the consequent. That is illogical. You said: P1: If X, then Y P2: Y C: Therefore, X I don't really see how. Could you explain where I put the if/then. P1: Men are awesome. P2: Sarah and Kayleigh are awesome. C: Therefore, Sarah and Kayleigh are men. Edit: I didn't notice that this thread has gone onto a second and third page.
I am awesome.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/20/08 - 03:47 PM:	#68
Yahadreas wrote: P1: Men are awesome. P2: Sarah and Kayleigh are awesome. C: Therefore, Sarah and Kayleigh are men. Edit: I didn't notice that this thread has gone onto a second and third page. In order to conclude that Sarah and Kayleigh are men, you would have to restate P1 to read "ONLY men are awesome".
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

bittersteel
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 14

Posted 06/05/08 - 05:50 AM:	#69
LOL Bronze, I'd like to see you convince a rock that it exists. As for I think, Therefore I am, it has a slightly deeper meaning and a few assumptions... When Descartes says "I", he means Consciousness. In his sense you exsist in YOUR OWN perspective when you're conscious. A lack of consciousness does ofcourse not mean you dont physically exist. But you are'nt CONSCIOUS of your existence when you're UNconscious, are you? Does a tree that falls make a sound when no one there to hear it - It produces vibrations, but sound is the action of these waves on the human ear, the absence of which in the above situation declares that a sound may not be made without anyone around to hear it. When you're conscious, you 'exist' in your perspective. When you're conscious, you can perceive and cognize. When you're unconscious you cant. When you're unconscious, you are not aware(?) of the things around you hence you mind bceomes a closed orb that is cut off from the rest of the world. In the statement, "AM" refers to being a part of the world through sensory interpretation; In this context, thats what existence means EXISTENCE does not merely mean physical existence. If that's the case all matter has been existing since the beginning of time in some form or the other; the very elementary particles that make up your body were once probably the part of a Red Giant or a nebula a few billion years back, and probably the pelvic region of a T-rex in the late cretaceous. So you THINK therefore you ARE...when you DON'T think you are NOT...as far as YOU (or for that matter - I) are concerned. Edited by bittersteel on 06/06/08 - 08:51 AM. Reason: Spelling and Grammar

mrtobs1988
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/03/09 - 10:07 AM: Subject: Response to Dunamis' argument	#70
Dunamis presented this argument: P1: The Best Arguments of All Time are those found in the form P1, P2: C. P2: No one has found the Best Arguments of All Time in the form P1, P2: C. C: The Best Arguments of All Time remain free from being found. The argument is begging the question in that it uses one of the premises as the conclusion. Namely he concludes that the best arguments of all times remains free from being found because no one has found it.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.