So... when you say "One says..." is the One the elephant? The other philosopher is of course Aristotle, who says nothing. Or that nothing can be proven.

Which is the true elephant? The extreme skeptic, or Aristotle, who, as a true skeptic, does not prove that a skeptic will not acknowledge things before him, as the case might be.

The "elephant" is something so large and obvious, that to question its existence is a refusal to discuss its nature.

So... the elephant is God?

So... the elephant is God? — god must be atheist

To you perhaps. Aristotle talking about having rational discourse.

I am logical. If I am irrational, then it's the premise that has errors in it.

Aristotle said that you should not support the stronger with the weaker and that the job of the philosopher is to follow the appearances.

So, if an argument has as a premise that 1 + 2 = 3 and someone seeks to dispute that premise by asserting that 1 + 3 = 8, then one does not need to bother with that person. They have not raised a reasonable doubt. They've just asserted something obviously false. It may not be obviously false to them, but that says something about them rather than about reality. And there is no point trying to argue with them, for any argument in support of 1 + 2 = 3 would appeal to premises less plausible than that 1 + 2 = 3. We have reached bedrock, so to speak.

Similarly, if one has as a premise that, say, sensations are mental states, and someone seeks to deny that premise by just contradicting it, then again, one should simply ignore that person. There is no point arguing with them, for any argument to the contrary would appeal to premises less apparent than the premise they are being used to support.

Likewise, if one has as a premise that, say, those who have done nothing deserve no harm, and someone seeks to deny that premise by just contradicting it, once more one should ignore that person for any argument one might try to give for the premise in question would have premises less clearly true than the premise itself.

Needless to say, virtually nobody here understands this.

Aristotle was undeniably a very intelligent person. How didn't he realize that his argument can be turned against him, mentally closed to question things that are obvious to him?

. I believe Aristotle originated that phrase (don't remember where). He tells the story of two philosophers standing before an elephant. — Jackson

I'd be very interested if you can produce any reference for that, I think it's bogus.

We've all heard that expression. I believe Aristotle originated that phrase (don't remember where). — Jackson

High quality philosophy and great writing skills to boot.

I think this is a mangled version of the well-known elephant analogy, in which a group of blind men are told to go and touch an elephant and report on what kind of beast it is. One touches the tail and reports an animal with bristles, another the trunk and reports a long, thin beast. And so on. Of course the moral of the story is that none of them can see the whole elephant, because they're, you know, blind, whereas by implication the [prophet/sage/philosopher] who sets them the task can see 'the whole elephant'. The wiki entry is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

From my own bag of simple experiences: A thief was shot twice - once in the chest and once in the butt - by police. He was brought unconscious into the ER and a code red was called. Some senior doctors (veterans) immediately latched onto the chest wound. There were two junior trainee doctors also there. One of 'em located the entry wound in the bottom. He immediately took a scalpel and proceeded to extract the responsible bullet - it was a grazing wound and the bullet was just sitting under the skin about 15 cm from the point of entry. This guy took a forceps and extracted the bullet with great finesse and he proudly announced "here's a bullet!" Nobody took notice as the patient was going into cardiorespiratory arrest! The Elephant Chest wound in the room ER!

Aristotle did not come up with this expression - though he respected elephants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room
and that isn't the scenario it is used in. It's not an epistemological saying it's more of social denial, fear related one. I think Wayfarer here...

is probably correct at least about part of what is being dragged in. Though that's not an elephant as symbol 'hey it's obvious, apriori' can't you see it, it's more, well, like Wayfarer says, and generally about how we may only notice the trees but not the forest. (oh, no)
Ah Wayfarer spotted the Aristotle problem already :up:

It was interesting to see how a hallucinated use of the elephant in the room expression led to arguments using Aristotle or 'Aristotle' as a foundation.

Then Wayfarer had to come in and say the emporer has no clothes.

Oh, wait, that's not quite the right use either. Damn. My fault, not Wayfarer's.....

I'd be very interested if you can produce any reference for that, I think it's bogus. — Wayfarer

I do not care what you think.

High quality philosophy and great writing skills to boot. — Noble Dust

I do. Glad you aspire to my knowledge.

Wow, super interesting.

I think this is a mangled version of the well-known elephant analogy, in which a group of blind men are told to go and touch an elephant and report on what kind of beast it is. One touches the tail and reports an animal with bristles, another the trunk and reports a long, thin beast. And so on. Of course the moral of the story is that none of them can see the whole elephant, because they're, you know, blind, whereas by implication the [prophet/sage/philosopher] who sets them the task can see 'the whole elephant'. The wiki entry is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant — Wayfarer

Only the very ignorant use wiki.

Aristotle was undeniably a very intelligent person. How didn't he realize that his argument can be turned against him, mentally closed to question things that are obvious to him? — Angelo Cannata

When did that happen? Please explaiin.

Did you spot the clown moving from the left to the right in the video.

I am not very observant, but this is a classic experiment. The subjects are asked to count the number of passes made by the white-shirt team. One is unlikely to notice the non-player dressed as a clown in the group.

Alertness for one particular thing can disrupt our perception of unrelated things. So drivers (and bicyclists, for that matter) may not notice bicyclists or pedestrians because they are focussed on cars--or something else.

Sorry for stealing your lunch. I did't notice it was your post -- thought it was Jackson's. Talk about awareness!

I do — Jackson

You do what?

You do what? — Noble Dust

What?

What did "I do" refer to?

What did "I do" refer to? — Noble Dust

Marriage ceremony.

Great writing skills indeed.

Great writing skills indeed. — Noble Dust

I do have great writing skills. Thank you.

:rofl:

:rofl: — Noble Dust

Thank you for the compliment!

How's your thread about elephants going?

How's your thread about elephants going? — Noble Dust

Good, thank you for your friendly contribution!