The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[henry quirk]

Must one truly use the quote function. I mean, seriously!!!

How about this...

Be obsessive about quoting yourself, through the quote function or thru cut & paste, but rarely quote your opponent directly. Paraphrase him. And quote your paraphrasing while attributing it to your opponent. Subtly, you can recast his meaning, and then force him to defend sumthin' he never said.

[Iwannaplato]

Be obsessive about quoting yourself, through the quote function or thru cut & paste, but rarely quote your opponent directly. Paraphrase him. And quote your paraphrasing while attributing it to your opponent. Subtly, you can recast his meaning, and then force him to defend sumthin' he never said.

In the specific case of the advanced stylist, he does often quote using the quote function. At least, that's my experience. But this a good summation. I do think shifting burden of proof is key.

[iambiguous]

I might put in in the category of "communications deliberately meant to NOT be understood", which I generally consider antithetical to philosophy and to language itself.

Well, I don't know, yet....
Here was his first response to me...

Well, the best I can explain it [even to myself], is it revolves around the paradox of me believing in determinism and yet still sustaining exchanges with others here as though I do have free will.

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to.

So, it seems to mean something like 'I am marking this point in the conversations where I move forward as if I have free will [whatever that means] even though I don't believe in free will, though I also don't rule it out.

So, while it comes off as negative about the other poster, I see it more as a private language situation. Like Benjamin Buttons or Stooges or serious philosophers. All things he likely has explained somewhere, but there is an 'encountering a unique dialect' aspect to reading the posts.

IOW I think it associates quickly to negative things, but he doesn't intend it the way it might seem.

I am not sure yet, I can make a rule, though I appreciate your efforts. Without it having some kind of dominance/evasion role, it really doesn't rise to the artistic level of the OP list.

Once again, all of the convoluted thinking about free will here [from all of us] revolves around the simple fact that none of us [to my knowledge] is able to explain definitively how their own brain does function given what they simply do not grasp about this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then it's just a matter of how much some here will shrug that part off and aver that what they insist really is the most rational understanding of the human condition here is by default the One True Path.

Then those here who don't stop at the either/or world but insist as well that the One True Path is freely available to all willing to think about morality in exactly the same way that they do.

Call it the Ayn Rand Syndrome.

As for things like Benjamin Button and dasein, I always challenge others to note how they are not really applicable to them at all given a particular context.

I even provide them with a particular context of my own in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

So, by all means, in terms of a personal value judgment of their own, let someone here note how their own intertwining of "theory and practice" resulted in a very different moral philosophy.

Then, as I suggested above, as that discussion unfolds, my "adversaries" here can note specifically when I do fall on IWP's list above.

[Iwannaplato]

Remember: let's not focus on any one stylist, however, advanced. We are composing a general list so we can all build up our skill sets.

And again, in response to any critique, simply repeating your position is the most basic, but also one of the most powerful tools for the budding rhetorician.

[henry quirk]

Be obsessive about quoting yourself, through the quote function or thru cut & paste, but rarely quote your opponent directly. Paraphrase him. And quote your paraphrasing while attributing it to your opponent. Subtly, you can recast his meaning, and then force him to defend sumthin' he never said.

In the specific case of the advanced stylist, he does often quote using the quote function. At least, that's my experience. But this a good summation. I do think shifting burden of proof is key.

I leave the details to you.

[henry quirk]

Remember: *let's not focus on any one stylist, however, advanced. We are composing a general list so we can all build up our skill sets.

And again, in response to any critique, simply repeating your position is the most basic, but also one of the most powerful tools for the budding rhetorician.

*

[phyllo]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

If we have free-will, then the 'click' is unnecessary and does nothing.

If we don't have free-will , then the 'click' does nothing and serves no purpose because free-will cannot be snapped into existence.

[Flannel Jesus]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

If we have free-will, then the 'click' is unnecessary and does nothing.

If we don't have free-will , then the 'click' does nothing and serves no purpose because free-will cannot be snapped into existence.

It's more like tourettes

[Iwannaplato]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

If we have free-will, then the 'click' is unnecessary and does nothing.

If we don't have free-will , then the 'click' does nothing and serves no purpose because free-will cannot be snapped into existence.

I like that you focused on the content, which could even hijack the thread. But I think it's lovely that 'click' is like 'snap'. The latter being less confusing and easier to explain.

I think being confusing, ambivalent is another tool. Like the use of the D word in an idiosyncratic way leading to thousands of explanatory posts are people talking past each other.
But much harder to offer a simple heuristic about how to confuse.

[Iwannaplato]

Think clickbait!

I suspect that there is an more generalized goal for some stylists:
get people reacting to me, preferably irritated. If they are irritated, then I am winning. If they stop communicating, I won. If they are justifying their writing and I don't need to demonstrate anything, I am winning.

IOW there is something deeper than winning and losing the argument, which has to do with, well justifications and deduction and evidence. And we should not get fooled by our own primitive rhetorical goals.

For some great stylists, the goal is to subtly trigger. Not so much that they leave, though a few doing this is fine since it means they win. But so that they keep coming back and attention, irritation and frustration are elicited. That's where the art comes in.

If we look at rhetoric as only serving the argument or position, we miss the entire dominance dynamics that true artists achieve, often without even knowing it.

The content matters less than what you can get others to do (hoops) and feel (frustration, irritation).

Clickbait is my metaphor.

[Flannel Jesus]

But much harder to offer a simple heuristic about how to confuse.

Abuse terms that already exist by meaning something completely new by them. And make up plenty of your own silly terms. For example, instead of saying "Free Will", say "Andy Dufresne Syndrome", because you once saw a movie that sorta reminds you of this idea a little bit.

[Flannel Jesus]

I suspect that there is an more generalized goal for some stylists:
get people reacting to me, preferably irritated. If they are irritated, then I am winning. If they stop communicating, I won. If they are justifying their writing and I don't need to demonstrate anything, I am winning.

Oh, this is good

[Iwannaplato]

But much harder to offer a simple heuristic about how to confuse.

Abuse terms that already exist by meaning something completely new by them. And make up plenty of your own silly terms. For example, instead of saying "Free Will", say "Andy Dufresne Syndrome", because you once saw a movie that sorta reminds you of this idea a little bit.

Added now to the OP as 27

[Iwannaplato]

iMPORTANT!
Now that we are cataloguing some of our local talent's flourishes, please use the list to praise people for using what we have so far.

IOW if someone repeats their position in a post that quotes you but does not respond to you. You can say....

Oh, nice rhetorical move: number 2.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40009

Adding the link might is obviously optional, but it will help the praise hit home.

[Iwannaplato]

I suspect that there is an more generalized goal for some stylists:
get people reacting to me, preferably irritated. If they are irritated, then I am winning. If they stop communicating, I won. If they are justifying their writing and I don't need to demonstrate anything, I am winning.

Oh, this is good

I reworded is as 29
29) Do not concern yourself with best arguments and rebuttals: dominate and get responses: Frustrating people - for example by not quite responding to them while quoting them - irritating them - see many of the above numbers - and putting all the burden on them, does several things: 1) you'll notice they do a lot of explaining while you don't; 2) you'll notice that they get upset, which means you are winning 3) some will stop communicating with you - this allows you to a) claim victory and b) take the high ground of never ignoring anyone - I mean, why ignore why you can frustrate, irritate and shift the burden to them? 29 is the strategy of the true geniuses.