/lit/ - Literature

>>22624497
at* arguing

>>22624497
You know, at least most people here are pretending to be interested in intellectual pursuits, I'm not sure why as an adult you'd want to develop the skills to become a more obnoxious loser
Study the liberal arts and focus on rhetoric I guess

>>22624497
Persuasion and Rhetoric by Carlo something

>>22624516
Thanks for nothing, faggot. Being good at debate is analogous to the pursuit of truth.
Do you enjoy losing arguments? Do you even care if what you believe is right or wrong? Is being able to determine if your opponent is spouting fallacious lies not a noble pursuit in your eyes?
Of course you didn't notice the allusion to platonic forms in the OP you imbecile
How about YOU get a life instead of being the first to comment on every thread that YOU don't like. You are not better than me, bitch boy.

>>22624584

>>22624584
So you read Plato and what you got out of it was “how can I be a sophist”? Truly a bronze soul

>>22624596
Why would I want to be a sophist? I want to have the right view and be able to prove it to others who are WEAK and won't take time to learn anything, how can I let them go on believing lies when they would rather spend time watching TV than researching this history of philosophy and learning how to argue?

>>22624589
I may be an asshole but gosh darnit I’ll always pet and love kitties

>>22624530
thanks

>>22624584
>Being good at debate is analogous to the pursuit of truth.

Not even slightly. The most convincing speaker is almost never the one telling the truth. Truth is bogged down by morons and naysayers, it is controversial while simultaneously boring, it invites hatred and vitriol and attacks. Winning an argument does not make you correct. Losing an argument does not make you wrong. There’s actually an inverse relationship with how great someone is at the art of convincing to their relationship with the truth, someone who is masterful at crafting arguments will not only convince others of falsehoods, but themselves as well, to the point even the speaker won’t know what’s right and what’s wrong. Pointing out fallacies doesn’t deter the other side, and convincing your opponent never works, you can only influence bystanders of the debate, who mostly seek the position closest related to their own preconceived notions, in which case you are preaching to a choir or you are the devil, depending on where the bystander sits. The only thing you can do is state your beliefs to the best of your abilities and forget the power hungry notion of being a master manipulator of minds.

>>22624497
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

>>22624497
Bimbocles, Slutaeius Gayus, Puñatta Brahman

And schopenhauer

>>22624649
Thankyou for this response, I agree with almost all of what you said, I am in pursuit of truth and I just want the ability to coherently and consistently defend my positions.

Fuck whatever OP is talking about. What do I need to read to be as far from the truth as possible? I want to have the objectively most incorrect positions on any given topic. I want to become the plebiest of all plebs. I want to be so far off from the truth on literally everything that it will astonish and bewilder those who witness me speaking. I know it's possible because r*ddit exists.

How can I plebmax? I want to shroud myself in a blanket of lies and falsehoods. What books will help me to accomplish this most ignoble of goals?

>>22624584
Nigga talks about platonic forms while arguing like a sophist. Only a politician demagogue would care about "winning the argument", in Plato's conception of dialectic the search for the truth is a common goal of all participants, not a competition. He'd spit on your faggot ass, Glaucon

>>22624722
>r*ddit
go back

>>22624724
>while arguing like a sophist
no shit, faggot, that's why I made the thread, to learn how to argue better. I never said I wanted to win for the sake of winning

>>22624730
Actually r*ddit is a great and informative website full of free thinkers, and also it has the least censorship of all websites.

>>22624743
good one

>>22624497
>/his/
>/pol/
Not here

>>22624584
Underage

Philosophy is a scam. Learning science and math will make you a rigorous thinker. Start with formal logic.

>>22624814
>formal logic.
no

>>22624814
Whats the point of rigorousness in the realm of human affairs?

>>22624819
>rigorousness
is a meme

>>22624497
In addition to reading about rhetoric, you should watch political debates and pay close attention.

Winning an argument has nothing todo with being right in the argument. An argument is a fight, and to win all you have to do is make your opponent submit.
Cause them to deviate from their point, disguise the weaknesses of your own points, cover your lies, expose their flaws, fluster them and cause them to embarrass themselves.

>>22624497
Aristotle, practice, trial and error.

>>22624497
Have fun:
http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

>>22624497
Arguments are more than debate tokens. Read Aristotle’s Metaphysics and compare his views with those of Plato, Democritus, Pythagoras, etc.

>>22624516
>at least most people here are pretending to be interested in intellectual pursuits,
Debate and rhetoric aren't?

>>22624497
Just say "Oh I see, but what's your deadlift PR?"
Higher than yours means they're correct, lower means they're wrong

>>22624516
Right, who needs an ability to articulate a point or persuade anyone. Losers, have sexo.

We live in a post-factual society. Your arguments don't mean shit. You can argue all you want, you can present facts and use valid and sound logic - it doesn't matter. If your facts and logic are forbidden you will get excluded, ostracized, persecuted. Most of the people you are arguing against do not argue to be convinced by arguments. They argue to exert power over you. And if you question their power they'll make your life a living hell.

>>22624497
Ideally you should focus instead on having correct, well-grounded beliefs. In that way, you will almost never have the weaker argument because you will be aware of the universally accessible evidence of your rightness and you can point people at those things to convince them too. Or in the event that you are mistaken, you will be able to recognize that and benefit by it rather than feeling bad about "losing" an argument.
For me, the recipe was textbooks. You want a smattering of introductory philosophy texts to just introduce you to a lot of conceptual frameworks to entertain, and then really go hard on math and physics to get a sense of the way logical relations really work at scale and the sensory material world appears to work.
Otherwise it's just a matter of staying calm and trying to be clear about terms.

>>22624497
For you? Just reading at all would be a start.

>>22624824
Ditto, but you'll find that any interaction with stakes involved is like this.

Supposedly academia should be immune but it is not. It is not in human nature to confer information like robots but 'abuse' of rethoric does inspire contempt. There's a fine middle line somewhere.

>>22625660
>>22624824
thankyou for your contribution
>>22625634
>We live in a post-factual society
That is the dominant zeitgeist of current year, but I am not blackpilled about it.
>>22625339
based
>>22624753
>>22624708
>>22624658
>>22625091
<3

>>22624497
Youre not actually thinking of a perfect circle, youre thinking of the idea of a circle and the label perfect. Ive dealt with this "theoretical problem" and solved it by dealing with it in patients.

t.Phenomenological Geometer

the sun is a perfect circle

>>22626992
What does the absence of platonic forms imply about reality? Does this have any implications on a priori knowledge in general?
>>22627013
They say that the Earth is an oblate sphereoid because due to its rotation, it bulges along the equator, making it not a perfect sphere.
If this is true, why does it apply to earth but not the sun? Why does the sun appear to be a perfect circle, if it is rotating like the Earth, why does it not bulge into an oblate spheroid instead of remaining a circle?

>>22627049
Its not about reality but people believing they understand their own brains when they are simply saying words while deluding themselves they are actually understanding those words.

Delusional.

>>22624665
>>22625091
Im reading some of this now, it's great!
>For it often happens that in a matter in which a man is really in the right, he is confounded or refuted by merely superficial arguments; and if he emerges victorious from a contest, he owes it very often not so much to the correctness of his judgment in stating his proposition, as to the cunning and address with which he defended it.

>>22624584
>Thanks for nothing, faggot. Being good at debate is analogous to the pursuit of truth.

You should actually kill yourself for this sentence alone.