Pachomius
01-01-2008, 10:58 PM
[ I have already posted this topic elsewhere. ]
What do you guys here say about my thread in another forum, Hypography Science Forums, of my last post there.
Re: Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses.
[ Please just look up the Hypography's philosophy and humanities board for this thread there, I can't put a link here because outside links are disabled -- or send me a pm, perhaps that might work in a pm(?). ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
I have discovered a new fallacy, I call it the fallacy of argument, or argumentum ad argumentum.
You see, since everyone has been conditioned in philosophy to establish facts by words through arguing, you can't convince anyone to see the fact of any particular case at issue by using words alone, if your opponent is a perverter of reason; because your opponent will just bring in more and more words to muddle the question, so that you lose your cool because you know that he is malingering, even though he himself might not know it for being himself the victim of his own argumentum ad argumentum fallacy, and believe himself to be very keen and logical.
That is why also Alfred Nobel, in my humble opinion, did not establish a prize for philosophy.
How do we expose the fallacy of argumentum ad argumentum?
Very simple: in our present context, the issue is your and my and his and every human person's factual existence distinct from any other's, you must go outside words and request of your opponent to do a simple harmless experiment, together with you, namely, that your opponent pinch his nose and your nose and you will do likewise; if he refuses to undertake that simple experiment, you can proceed to everyday questions about physiological functions like bowel movement and breaking wind.
Here is a story from yours truly:
A good king once runs his kingdom so well that everyone has the wherewithals to live a happy existence and die contentedly having lived a full life as luck would enable him to do so.
One day a pseudo-philosopher came by and started telling the people that they could not be sure they exist except in their own each one's mind by thinking. The people were all perplexed no end.
The king happened to be pretty smart himself and smarter than the pseudo-philosopher, so he had the pseudo-philosopher hauled to a solitary glass cubicle where everyone could see and talk to him through small holes in the glass panels.
The king then told his people that since this dude believes that he only exists in his mind by his thinking, then he could think his way to food and water.
Now, there are two endings to this story:
One ending goes like this: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he admits and declares that he now knows for sure as he shits and farts that he exists outside his mind even when he is not thinking; the king released him from his solitary confinement, and he, the pseudo-philosopher, took his leave pronto and expresso. And no pseudo-philosopher ever sets foot again in this king's realm.
The other ending goes like as follows: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he was so stubborn and proud to admit it, saying to himself that he would rather die than confess to his stupidity of a philosophy, and he did die from starvation and dehydration in an agonizing death.
And you know what? Again, no pseudo-philosopher also ever sets foot in the realm of that king as long as he lives; but pseudo-philosophers outside proclaim their dead and non-longer existing comrade as a martyr to the cause of non-existence.
cotner
cotner, that's my name in that forum of Hypography.
I am putting this post of mine here because nobody is reacting to it there anymore or so far; and I just want people to come to some conciliation about their differences, starting with people who react to my thoughts -- but they usually disappear, that's my impression.
Pachomius
What do you guys here say about my thread in another forum, Hypography Science Forums, of my last post there.
Re: Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses.
[ Please just look up the Hypography's philosophy and humanities board for this thread there, I can't put a link here because outside links are disabled -- or send me a pm, perhaps that might work in a pm(?). ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
I have discovered a new fallacy, I call it the fallacy of argument, or argumentum ad argumentum.
You see, since everyone has been conditioned in philosophy to establish facts by words through arguing, you can't convince anyone to see the fact of any particular case at issue by using words alone, if your opponent is a perverter of reason; because your opponent will just bring in more and more words to muddle the question, so that you lose your cool because you know that he is malingering, even though he himself might not know it for being himself the victim of his own argumentum ad argumentum fallacy, and believe himself to be very keen and logical.
That is why also Alfred Nobel, in my humble opinion, did not establish a prize for philosophy.
How do we expose the fallacy of argumentum ad argumentum?
Very simple: in our present context, the issue is your and my and his and every human person's factual existence distinct from any other's, you must go outside words and request of your opponent to do a simple harmless experiment, together with you, namely, that your opponent pinch his nose and your nose and you will do likewise; if he refuses to undertake that simple experiment, you can proceed to everyday questions about physiological functions like bowel movement and breaking wind.
Here is a story from yours truly:
A good king once runs his kingdom so well that everyone has the wherewithals to live a happy existence and die contentedly having lived a full life as luck would enable him to do so.
One day a pseudo-philosopher came by and started telling the people that they could not be sure they exist except in their own each one's mind by thinking. The people were all perplexed no end.
The king happened to be pretty smart himself and smarter than the pseudo-philosopher, so he had the pseudo-philosopher hauled to a solitary glass cubicle where everyone could see and talk to him through small holes in the glass panels.
The king then told his people that since this dude believes that he only exists in his mind by his thinking, then he could think his way to food and water.
Now, there are two endings to this story:
One ending goes like this: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he admits and declares that he now knows for sure as he shits and farts that he exists outside his mind even when he is not thinking; the king released him from his solitary confinement, and he, the pseudo-philosopher, took his leave pronto and expresso. And no pseudo-philosopher ever sets foot again in this king's realm.
The other ending goes like as follows: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he was so stubborn and proud to admit it, saying to himself that he would rather die than confess to his stupidity of a philosophy, and he did die from starvation and dehydration in an agonizing death.
And you know what? Again, no pseudo-philosopher also ever sets foot in the realm of that king as long as he lives; but pseudo-philosophers outside proclaim their dead and non-longer existing comrade as a martyr to the cause of non-existence.
cotner
cotner, that's my name in that forum of Hypography.
I am putting this post of mine here because nobody is reacting to it there anymore or so far; and I just want people to come to some conciliation about their differences, starting with people who react to my thoughts -- but they usually disappear, that's my impression.
Pachomius