attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:46 pm
No it's not.
The art of persuasion is to provide an articulate rational explanation of something to someone, in the hope that they are intelligent enough to comprehend it. It is not to merely induce some form of suggestion via 'hypnotism'.
Suppose that the OP convinces me that Islam is, indeed "evil". I understand the argument, I am intelligent enough to comprehend it and I agree fully.
And then? Does my agreement mean I must now act against Evil Islam? Why? I only agreed that Islam is Evil. I didn't agree that we must act against Evil?
If the OP's argument persuades you to begin taking any action that you previously didn't the OP has successfully convinced you what you ought to be doing. Somehow you have crossed a philosophical gap that "cannot be crossed".
"I am optimistic the new knowledge and technology will be able to influence theists to understand their clinging to an illusion for psychological purpose in the future ASAP. Then they will give up theism and replace it with fool proof voluntarily methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis."
I think you're wildly over-estimating the future power of mind-changing technologies and wildly under-estimating the staying power of 'belief'.
Much easier just to kill bad actors than reform them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 am
Your problem is you are unable to appreciate the Principle of Charity and read the questioner's mind which is focus on the conventional empirical perspective.
Instead in thinking you are smart, you change the perspective to the atomic perspective where it is true a diamond gem in that sense is not solid and is 'soft'.
This is intellectually dishonest.
Well, that is a mis-interpretation of the Principle of Charity if there ever was one.
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation
In applying the principle I assume that you are far more knowledgeable, far more intelligent and far more rational than I am.
For I know that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged with logic and reason. It is because I am charitable I assume you know this too. Therefore I assume that you also know all arguments can be reduced down to 'I want X' while the rest of the verbiage is just an elaborate rationalisation of your desires.
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. The purpose of arguments/rhetoric is to hypnotise other people into agreeing with you. It is because I am charitable I assume you know this too.
Or maybe you don't know this? In which case - my charity is misplaced.
The is-ought gap cannot be bridged with conventional logic and reason.
However Kant had demonstrated the is-ought can be reconciled with philosophy-proper and critical thinking on a meta-level on a complementarity and system basis.
Note there is the Ying and Yang gap but they are reconciled on a complementarity and system basis. This Ying-Yang complementarity was used by Bohr to resolve dilemmas in Quantum Mechanics.
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:04 pmRhetoric is the art of persuasion. The purpose of arguments/rhetoric is to hypnotise other people into agreeing with you
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:46 pm
No it's not.
The art of persuasion is to provide an articulate rational explanation of something to someone, in the hope that they are intelligent enough to comprehend it. It is not to merely induce some form of suggestion via 'hypnotism'.
Suppose that the OP convinces me that Islam is, indeed "evil". I understand the argument, I am intelligent enough to comprehend it and I agree fully.
And then? Does my agreement mean I must now act against Evil Islam? Why? I only agreed that Islam is Evil. I didn't agree that we must act against Evil?
If the OP's argument persuades you to begin taking any action that you previously didn't the OP has successfully convinced you what you ought to be doing. Somehow you have crossed a philosophical gap that "cannot be crossed".
I did not question you about the OP, I disagreed with your statement that the purpose of arguments/rhetoric is to hypnotise other people into agreeing with you. You have not addressed my rebuttal.
But in relation to your statement, if one was persuaded that Islam is 'evil', then yes they should act to minimise its encroachment from the borders where it is most prevalent (at the minimum). In other words, I myself, if persuaded, might vote for a political party that has a more hardline approach to emigration, especially of Muslims.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:24 am
The is-ought gap cannot be bridged with conventional logic and reason.
However Kant had demonstrated the is-ought can be reconciled with philosophy-proper and critical thinking on a meta-level on a complementarity and system basis.
So philosophy-proper and critical thinking are not based on logic and reason?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:09 am
I disagreed with your statement that the purpose of arguments/rhetoric is to hypnotise other people into agreeing with you.
But in relation to your statement, if one was persuaded that Islam is 'evil', then yes they should act to minimise its encroachment from the borders where it is most prevalent (at the minimum). In other words, I myself, if persuaded, might vote for a political party that has a more hardline approach to emigration, especially of Muslims.
Interesting. So lets outline your rebuttal:
1. The is-ought cannot be crossed
2. You disagree with my statement that the purpose of arguments/rhetoric is to hypnotise other people into agreeing with the orator.
3. An argument might persuade you to alter emigration policy.
You cross a gap that cannot be crossed? How? Magic argument vodoo!
Last edited by Logik on Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:24 am
The is-ought gap cannot be bridged with conventional logic and reason.
However Kant had demonstrated the is-ought can be reconciled with philosophy-proper and critical thinking on a meta-level on a complementarity and system basis.
So philosophy-proper and critical thinking are not based on logic and reason?
Precisely my point
There are many types and levels of logic and reasoning.
Note Kant's Critique of Pure* Reason.
* primal.
Thus we need philosophy-proper and critical thinking, i.e. the higher and finer quality of thinking from the neo-cortex brain and not that from our embedded primal brain to reconcile and complement "IS" with "OUGHT."
Note in this case "IS" is never nor bridge "OUGHT" but they are in parallel to each other and work in a complementarily basis.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:04 am
There are many types and levels of logic and reasoning.
Yes there are.
None that can bridge the is-ought gap.
Note I did not claim we can bridge the is-ought gap.
Note my point again;
Thus we need philosophy-proper and critical thinking, i.e. the higher and finer quality of thinking from the neo-cortex brain and not that from our embedded primal brain to reconcile and complement "IS" with "OUGHT."
Note in this case "IS" is never nor bridge "OUGHT" but they are in parallel to each other and work in a complementarily basis.
This book appeals to decision theory. Decision theory is also known as "the theory of choice".
All choices require values. An ought. Desire and preference. I want X more than I want Y...
You are making my argument for me.
Nope.
My point re the book is to show that logic and reason is primal and fundamentally based on our biology.
In a sense, "is" [empirical & biological] is reconciliable to 'ought' [reason] can be reconciled to a common basis i.e. biology.
But my main point is they are complementary in the higher sense of philosophy-proper and higher reasonings.
Philosophically, it was Hume who introduced the "IS-OUGHT" dichotomy but note Kant was woken from his "dogmatic" slumber on this particular issue and Kant resolved the dilemma on a complementary basis.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:36 am
Note I did not claim we can bridge the is-ought gap.
So what is your end goal in presenting "rational arguments"? Are you not trying to persuade people to act against Islam?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:36 am
Note in this case "IS" is never nor bridge "OUGHT" but they are in parallel to each other and work in a complementarily basis.
Prescriptive statements are in parallel to descriptive statements about the world? The future and the present run in parallel?
Yeah. I am not buying what you are selling.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:36 am
Note I did not claim we can bridge the is-ought gap.
So what is your end goal in presenting "rational arguments". Are you not trying to persuade people to act against Islam?
I am trying to convince people of understanding the truth of what Islam-the-ideology really is, i.e. it is mainly evil inherently. The results of this is glaringly evident. I have provided evidences and arguments for my claims.
The primary focus must be on the ideology and not on Muslims as human beings.
Once we understand the ideology of Islam is mainly evil, then humanity need to take the necessary corrective actions without terrible negative impact to the human beings who are Muslims.
Nevertheless the guilty Muslims must be dealt with but that is secondary.
Prescriptive statements are in parallel to descriptive statements about the world? The future and the present run in parallel?
Yeah. I am not buying what you are selling.
Why the shift to future and present? i.e. straw man.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:44 am
I am trying to convince people of understanding the truth of what Islam-the-ideology really is, i.e. it is mainly evil inherently. The results of this is glaringly evident. I have provided evidences and arguments for my claims.
The primary focus must be on the ideology and not on Muslims as human beings.
Once we understand the ideology of Islam is mainly evil, then humanity need to take the necessary corrective actions without terrible negative impact to the human beings who are Muslims.
Nevertheless the guilty Muslims must be dealt with but that is secondary.
OK you have convinced me that Islam is Evil.
Now what am I supposed to do?
"Corrective action" sounds like prescriptive statements.
I am not sure how you got from "X is Evil" to "We must correct Evil".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:44 am
I am trying to convince people of understanding the truth of what Islam-the-ideology really is, i.e. it is mainly evil inherently. The results of this is glaringly evident. I have provided evidences and arguments for my claims.
The primary focus must be on the ideology and not on Muslims as human beings.
Once we understand the ideology of Islam is mainly evil, then humanity need to take the necessary corrective actions without terrible negative impact to the human beings who are Muslims.
Nevertheless the guilty Muslims must be dealt with but that is secondary.
OK you have convinced me that Islam is Evil.
Now what am I supposed to do?
You have to be convinced based on objective facts in understanding the Quran thoroughly.
If that is the case, then, you are potentially a positive to humanity in that you will not be a Islamist apologists as what the Left are doing in coddling Islam as a peaceful religion.
You can do more by educating the skeptics and Muslims on the truth that the major part of Islam is objectively evil and malignant as support by the glaring evidence committed by SOME Muslims who are influenced and inspired to commit evil by their God.
