/lit/ - Literature

Suppose it isn't...

>>14200325
First time today I've exhausted air through my nose spasmodically thanks to linguistic provocation by a 4chan post.

>>14200325
But that's correct, that's what he's saying.

>>14200313
He is right, that's part of the reason I don't take Nagarjuna seriously, basically his whole metaphysical scheme relies on them, which he doesn't even manage to pull off properly

>>14200386
Hmmmmm interesting....:3

>>14200967

>>14200313
it's basically by definition uncharitable so yes. you should be looking for ways to justify what your opponent is saying; when there is no way to, then the position has been shown to be false. simply reducing something to the point of absurdity without offering ways to get around that absurdity doesn't accomplish much other than making the other side revise the thesis slightly and re-present it

>>14201022
No one is talking about debates here kid, this isn't college. :3

>>14200313
Yes and no.
Reducing a proposition to the point where you find a contradiction that does not exist is faulty. Finding implications that cannot possibly be agreed with is something else.

>>14201335
yeah i'm not talking about debates but pursuing truth. dumbass

>>14200313
I feel like Plato was far more likely to say this than Aristotle though.

>>14200313
When you arrive at a contradiction, you only know that at least one of your premises is faulty, but not which in particular, or how many. This is a problem in philosophical argumentation because most premises are accompanied by some degree of uncertainty.
Ok I’m talking out of my ass and there are probably similar issues for direct reasoning, but those are my thoughts.

How could any form of logical argument be "weaker" than another? Either you've proved something or you haven't.

>>14201546
Because Athenians didn’t care about truth, all the my cares about was boy-fucking.

Why does everyone talk about Aristotle more than Augustine?

>>14201631
Athenians were antifaggots (unless boy is between 11 and 14 then it's alright). You're thinking of Theban scum.

>>14201546
Well, Aristotle makes the claim that affirmative syllogisms, since they involve two affirmative relations, are superior than negative syllogisms, since those involve one affirmative and one negative relation.

A reductio ad absurdum, as some have already stated require a negative syllogism to be proven BEFORE it is proven.

And Aristotle has already proven that affirmative relations are superior to negative relations.

Therefore reductio ad absurdums are inferior to negative syllogisms which are inferior to positive syllogisms. :3

>>14202561
Replace 'positive' with 'affirmative'.

Sorry, just woke up

>>14200313
Yes because it doesn't apply to the true purpose of logic, which is to make useful and meaningful conclusions on defined events or hypotheses, according to him.

>>14201450
This is in a explicit critic of Plato's take on logic by the way, it's specified right in the beginning of the first book of the NE.

>>14201546
By not proving something, or proving something by not using the right argumentation, or proving something by disproving something else. This is extensively discussed in large chunks of the book, on several ethical issues (virtues, knowledge and wisdom, etc.).

>>14202973
Yeah, I'm sort of paraphrasing Aristotle here, towards the end of Book one of Posterior Analytics.

Aristotall recall 2: the electric bumpaloo

>>14201335
dude philosophy is a dialectical process the principle of charity is essential

>>14205698
It's more or less social. I love philosophy but I hate the philosophy-types :3