Philosophy Now Forum

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'.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:27 am

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.

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".

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.

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.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:57 am

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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:04 am There are many types and levels of logic and reasoning.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:04 am Note reason can be very primal.
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
by William S. Cooper
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:08 am

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.

• 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:36 am Note I did not claim we can bridge the is-ought gap.

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.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:38 am

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?

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.

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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:44 am Why the shift to future and present? i.e. straw man.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:45 am

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?