'Logic is a powerful tool; its power, however, has its limits. So it frequently loses out against emotion, not because emotion is more reliable than reasoning, but because emotion is more forceful'. — Jack Cummins
These old posts below (I know you don't care much for links to other posts but ...) suggest how I begin to clarify my thinking (à la Peirce, Dewey, Russell, Witty, Haack et al):I am raising this topic as a way of exploring philosophy arguments as a way of clarity of thinking. — Jack Cummins
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/594607How do we tell good philosophy from bad philosophy? More philosophy?
— Tom Storm
Not "more". We just refrain from
Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science ...
— 180 Proof
... taking / seeking these paths of least cognitive effort (i.e. sophistry). — 180 Proof
Not "more". We just refrain from
Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science ... — 180 Proof
The issue of difficulty answering questions is what puts some people off philosophy, although taking that view is a rather restricted one. — Jack Cummins
Also, some have more need to read and think about philosophy if common sense and various ideas encountered seem inadequate or contradictory. — Jack Cummins
I think, instead, it is the most important part. Just as science is, overall, reasoning to better, more probitive (parsimonious) explanations, philosophy is reasoning to better, more probative (unbegged) questions. An answer, especially a speculative one, is just a question's way of generating (i.e. usually re-formulating it into) a new, or different, question. Thus, 'the gadfly's' examined life. :fire:Forming questions is an important part of philosophy. — Jack Cummins
Socratics (e.g. Plato et al) called these persuaders "sophists". Today, I suppose, we call them "lawyers, politicians, preachers, propagandists, public relations agents, advertisers, influencers, brokers, pundits, gurus, psycho-analysts / therapists, fortune tellers, conspiracy theorists ..."Philosophy as persuasion may be shallow as it is with another end in mind rather than an open approach to where the philosophy quest may lead. — Jack Cummins
I wonder about this, in both the construction of logic and the interpretation of evidence, especially as both logic and evidence based research are meant to come from a perspective of rationality and neutrality. In his discussion of logical fallacies, Withey points to many assumptions which are logical fallacies in philosophy arguments, including ad hominem arguments, appeal to emotion, faith, fear, tradition and nature, as well as hasty generalisations, moralistic fallacy and magical thinking, as well as straw man thinking. — Jack Cummins
I know smoking kills; My attitude is generally a don't-give-a-damn one; My belief is quitting should mean I get to see my grandchildren; My practice, chain smoker. — Agent Smith
I am not a smoker! — Jack Cummins
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.