It sounds too harsh to describe someone stupid just by reading her few lines of the book reviews. — Corvus
There could be just differences in opinions. — Corvus
my ideas about logic — Corvus
I would have thought everything is clear on the sufficient and necessary conditions for the premises. — Corvus
true definition, you asked. I was meaning the right and proper definition that fits for the better premise. — Corvus
not possible to have a 100% true definition in many cases — Corvus
adding another definition i.e. dogs bark, and cars meow — Corvus
wide definition (dogs are animals.) — Corvus
I would have thought anyone would know what sufficient and necessary definitions as better premises are like. — Corvus
True definitions are what philosophers are seeking to find and come up with in their thinking and debates process. — Corvus
comment on Valid arguments doesn't have to have false conclusions — Corvus
But it would be judged as an inconsistent argument even if valid? — Corvus
mostly the points from Critical Thinking and Informal Arguments books — Corvus
I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. And I said she is an ignoramus and a nutjob* (also see her list of conspiracy theory sources).
* That she is a nutjob doesn't in and of itself entail that her comments about logic are incorrect. Her comments about logic are incorrect anyway. Pointing out that she is a nutjob is just to anecdotally celebrate the great comedy of life. — TonesInDeepFreeze
There are books that are as mixed up about the concepts as you are? — TonesInDeepFreeze
I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. — TonesInDeepFreeze
should you not allow that other people could have different opinions about anything of their own? — Corvus
Just because she had different opinion about logic, that doesn't mean what she wrote is stupid — Corvus
When someone describes other people as stupid without justified ground, it reveals more about the describer and his psychological state and motives, than the other people who were described as stupid. — Corvus
I feel that the Informal Arguments books have far more practical ideas than the simple traditional or symbolic logic. — Corvus
those [symbolic logic] books are full of boring dry useless contents, — Corvus
you will realise that philosophy is far more than dog fighting with symbolic logic jargons. — Corvus
You must try to look at the problems with your own reasoning first, and if needed, create your own definitions, — Corvus
and apply them to the real philosophical issue in the world — Corvus
Your arguments sound to me the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts. — Corvus
That essentially is a HUGE strawman. I have never written anything that remotely suggests that "the world should exist for symbolic logic" You are ridiculous to say that my arguments even "sound like" that. — TonesInDeepFreeze
X is stupid means your feeling about X, — Corvus
one could be stupid on something, but genius in other subjects — Corvus
Why should you suppose that other people will agree with a psychological reflection of someone without critical objective ontological infallible evidence? — Corvus
The inference was drawn from your comment about the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking books. — Corvus
They are not some mixed up ideas, as you suggested. — Corvus
my point went right over your head like a 747. You had conveyed some terribly mixed up ideas about logic and you said you got those ideas from a logic book. My point is that I bet the book didn't say those things but instead you misconstrued or misremembered the book. But if the book really did say those things, then, yes, that book is quite bad. — TonesInDeepFreeze
talking about throwing around jargon. 'ontological'. Oh come on, descriptions about people aren't ontology. — TonesInDeepFreeze
But it is up to the reader either to accept the book's points or go his own way and establish his own logic too. You seem to be denying the latter case, — Corvus
just blindly following the books and what those authors said. — Corvus
I feel all of your points are from some old logic books — Corvus
not really practical or useful in real applications such as debating or clarifying philosophical problems. — Corvus
It is far more interesting reads than the symbolic logic books. — Corvus
Ontology just means the way things exist either in material or mental world, nothing sophisticated or complicated. — Corvus
Now please stop saying that I said the poster is stupid. And please do not further perpetuate the strawmen you've set up. And please stop making things up about me. — TonesInDeepFreeze
you misunderstood again. — Corvus
Why should you suppose that other people will agree with a psychological reflection of someone without critical objective ontological infallible evidence? — Corvus
if you said X is a book, then it is possible to find the ontological ground for it. — Corvus
It can be also argued that the statement existed inside your mind only - so depending on what your ontological stand is, it is also possible. Are you an idealist or materialist? See your old little symbolic logic has been confusing and muddling your thoughts. — Corvus
Now please stop saying that I said the poster is stupid. And please do not further perpetuate the strawmen you've set up. And please stop making things up about me.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
You started this argument, not me. I am just responding to your arguments. — Corvus
It doesn't matter whether you said she was stupid or what she said was stupid. — Corvus
The point was that your statement was your private mental feeling or judgement or state, not the external worldly fact or object. That is the only point. — Corvus
Obviously it's my opinion that what she said is stupid. But I gave ample explanation supporting that opinion. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Only thing I was saying is that, it is not a philosophically justifiable, acceptable or meaningful statement. — Corvus
That's all. — Corvus
The whole of your arguments and the conclusion was inconsistent and invalid from the theories of the Informal Logic — Corvus
This is the limitation of the symbolic logic. They dictate that every argument must fit into some set forms. — Corvus
most arguments in real life do not fit into any forms — Corvus
many people think that symbolic logic is not practical for real life applications, to which I agree. — Corvus
Your level of thinking is not much better than someone who never heard of written language and said, "What good are these letter shapes? They don't make sounds come out of my mouth," — TonesInDeepFreeze
private feelings and mental states, utterly groundless and unfounded. — Corvus
I am not suggesting that you need to be interested in it. But your arguments about it and your claims about its inferiority and lack of application are based in sheer ignorance. — TonesInDeepFreeze
A splendid description of your postings here. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Mother of all inferiority complex is from someone who describes other people or other peoples' writings as stupid on solely groundless personal feelings. — Corvus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.