I don't know you so I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well, it is Hegel's idea that every definition runs into problems as it engenders its own opposition when taken to the extreme, so any definition will immediately incur an objection. — Tobias

What exactly is meant by "it's own opposition"? How can a definition oppose itself? It's all very alien to me. I wish you would provide an example or some description of a purely hypothetical scenario in which this occurs.

The beginning of the Science of Logic by Hegel gives an apt account. When we consider the concept of 'being' (Sein) and claim for instance that that is the object of first philosophy, and we try to define it, than it shows that in fact the concept is empty. It is as empty as its conceptual opposite, nothing (Nichts). So thinking in terms of being is immediately faced with nothing, because conceptually they are the same thing and not the same thing. — Tobias

I'm not sure if the English words you used are adequate translations of the German words Hegel used. "Being" is a word we rarely use in common parlance and it is difficult for me to see how it could possibly be the opposite of "Nothing".

The idea moves in a certain way, it moves dialectically, meaning that a certain theory or worldview runs into contradictions and will engender opposition, leading to a new theory which manages to make sense of this earlier contradiction. — Tobias

What is a "Contradiction"? In other words what is it's nature or essence? When does a "Contradiction" occur? Maybe it would help if you defined it in terms of an if then statement. In other words if X then "Contradiction" or if X occurs then a "Contradiction" is the result. An example might be if I was trying to define a square and said "if a shape has 4 sides of equal length and 4 right angles then it is a square" in other words "When a shape has 4 sides of equal length and 4 right angles it is a square" or if I was to put it in the form of a standard definition "A square is a shape that has 4 sides of equal length and 4 right angles". Maybe this method is only useful in geometry or maybe it is completely useless but I think I need some sort of definition in order to understand what is being referred to. I'll reiterate the fact that my understanding of "Contradiction" is probably confined to my reading of Plato's dialogue Euthyphro.

interesting

For the Greeks, dialectics was both rhetorical, as well as philosophical, though had no relation to the historical or the economic. — Hillary

Thank you for this information. I'm quite fond of rhetoric as a subject.

Marx took Greek and Hegelian Dialectics and applied it to Economic Theory. — Hillary

What are you referring to when you mention "Greek and Hegelian Dialectics"? I've heard the word "Dialectics" before but I won't pretend to understand ancient Greek or German philosophy.

Simplifying. Hegel often referred to his method as dialectical history. That ideas which are commonly believed eventually are discovered to contradict themselves.

Marx wrongly thought Hegel was an idealist, but nonetheless used his concept of necessary contradictions in history. Thus, capitalism had contradictions that would lead to socialism. — Jackson

I can't help but wonder what a "contradiction" is exactly. I've tried to rap my head around the Maoist concept of "contradiction" but admittedly I haven't made much progress. Even discussing the term in it's purely logical sense is still something I find difficult. My conception of "contradiction" is probably confined to my reading of Plato's Euthyphro.

it's roughly the idea that the world has a materialist basis (i.e. we don't need to invoke God, or immaterial souls, or transcendental ideas, to explain it), but this materialist basis itself changes under it's own interactions with itself. — RolandTyme

Thank you for providing such a succinct definition!

Pathetic

If the end result of both a "lie" and a "sophistry" is deception, this does not mean that there's no difference between them! (In fact, a big one.) — Alkis Piskas

Please explain the difference.

If the goal in both cases is deception then I don't really see the difference.

False promises and lies do not consist "sophistry". — Alkis Piskas

How would you define sophistry?

Thank you for your suggestions.

Sophistry is rather rampant in our society, because mass media and an abundance of information, has turned us all into "know-it-alls", and we will go around showing off our knowledge in subjects which we are really quite ignorant of. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree

Generally, this is why I tend to advocate for something like a principle of 'least force' or 'least punishment' where we always go with the minimum punishment necessary to protect the rest of society from that person. — Theorem

How do you calculate the necessary amount of punishment?

you have interesting arguments and I need to think about them before I respond.

The predator can become the prey. — Theorem

I wouldn’t shed a tear if the predators of this world became someone’s prey. But I think what you’re trying to get at is the question of whether or not they would then be classified as innocent. Maybe I should revise my metric because If someone is running around with a hammer savagely beating people to death and someone comes along and takes that hammer away from them and then proceeded to give them a taste of their own medicine I have a hard time believing that this would be a bad thing. So maybe it’s not as simple as predator and prey. Maybe it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the crime and the fact that such behavior is unwarranted. Under this revised metric it would not be the simple fact that the serial killers are predators but it would instead be the fact that they are hunting people that haven’t done anything to warrant the death sentence.

Biology says otherwise. — Theorem

I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. Theories of biological humanity have been used by some of the most nefarious forces in history to justify their atrocities. The nazis are a good example. But I also don’t think that it’s a good idea to be merciful to someone that would not extend that same mercy to you. Given the chance they would probably butcher you just as quickly as their other victims regardless of your humanistic or humanitarian ideas.

How do you draw the line between 'guilty' and 'innocent'? — Theorem

I think I would base it on who is the predator and who is the prey. Otherwise I would be forced to conclude that serial killers are innocent and their victims are guilty.

Barbarous (adj) - savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal — Theorem

The US is already savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal in my book and has been for a long time. One look at the CIA and it’s track record should be enough to prove that.

Yes. They are still human, right? — Theorem

I don’t think so.

On purely moral grounds I might try to argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and highlight the moral hypocrisy of engaging in the very practice that we're condemning. — Theorem

The practice I’m condemning is the destruction of innocent life and not the punishment of the guilty.

On consequentialist grounds, I might query the value of torture as a deterrent over an above to the death penalty and the 'barbarizing' effect that the legitimization of torture has on the wider culture and on international relations. — Theorem

I wish you would clearly state your precise meaning when you use words like barbarizing because historically concepts like civilization and barbarism have been used to justify atrocities.

Since I live in the US I'd probably start by arguing on legal grounds. "Cruel and unusual" punishment is (theoretically) prohibited by the Constitution. — Theorem

If you know anything about the 13th amendment then you know that slavery is acceptable under the constitution as a form of punishment.

On metaphysical grounds I might try to argue on the basis of basic human dignity. — Theorem

Do you mean the basic human dignity of the serial killer?

I am not an advocate of 'ignorance is bliss,' but I thought we were discussing individual reaction to truth rather than being ignorant of truth. — universeness

I apologize because I was under the opposite impression.

I don't want to feel 'sweet' in such situations, that sounds weak and defeatist.
Unless you are using 'sweet' in the same sense as the modern use of 'wicked' as something good and 'cool.' — universeness

I do think that I’m using the words in precisely the way you outlined. Meaning that I use the word “sweet” to say that the truth is the best thing. I don’t even know what feeling “sweet” would mean.

I repeat that it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to feel bitter about certain truths they have had to face in their lives and I think they should not take your viewpoint that 'all truths are sweet.' — universeness

Interesting. I’m not sure that we disagree. I never said that feeling a certain way is illegitimate. But I maintain that the truth is the sweetest thing there is. Maybe people are bitter but the truth is not. It is good to learn and acquire knowledge even if it is difficult. But let me ask you this would you prefer to be blissfully ignorant or the opposite?

Is the merciless torture of even one innocent person by the state worth a % reduction in violent crime? — Theorem

Of course this isn’t what I’m advocating. But let’s discuss the question in hypothetical terms. If it could be proven that no one would be wrongfully convicted would you have a problem with the policy I’m proposing? If so how would you argue against it?

especially when you consider that the frequency of accidental wrongful convictions in the US has been estimated at 2 - 10%. — Theorem

I don’t have as much faith as you do in statistics. I believe that things like courts and prisons are actually weapons in the hands of a ruling class. Meaning that they are used not for the sake of “justice” but instead to defend their supremacy.

Widely held cultural taboos (such as those against the use of torture) can make it less likely (though certainly not impossible) for the state to engage in such actions. — Theorem

I would argue that this only constrains what the state does in front of everyone but not what it does in secret.

If anything, I feel we should be pushing in the other direction. — Theorem

What do you mean exactly by “in the other direction”?

That said, I have major qualms with granting the State the power to torture. I worry about false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power. — Theorem

The state doesn’t need permission to do anything. Historically It does whatever it wants. As far as false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power go you could make the same argument against execution or any form of punishment.

I agree

Plato thought that “Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance“

I’d rather be told the tragic truth in such a situation than a a comforting lie. To me it is lies that are bitter but I understand your position and I won’t criticize you or call you silly for believing that the truth can be bitter.

Should we torture them mercilessly before doing so? — Theorem

I’m on board with torturing them mercilessly. Not because I’m some kind of sadist but because I think it would help deter others from engaging in similar behavior as well as being a form of justice. But I understand your position on the subject and if you’d prefer to avoid this kind of discussion I completely understand.

the will to cause gratuitous suffering in others — Theorem

At what point does suffering become “gratuitous”? Or what is necessary for suffering to be “gratuitous”? I’m assuming you mean uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted and not given or done free of charge.

I think it's something like 'the will to cause gratuitous suffering in others', usually born out of resentment or hatred, which is usually born of out of a refusal to recognize and correct the defects in one's own culture or self. I don't know. Thoughts? — Theorem

Would you consider it evil if those “others” were serial killers? I personally don’t think that it would be evil. Maybe you mean innocent people though and I don’t want to misconstrue or misinterpret your ideas.

Socrates employed sophistic arguments in order to persuade, but persuasion was not divorced from what he thought best for those he was persuading. — Fooloso4

Could you refer me to a specific dialogue?