This will be jerra's draft

[Crown Royal]

logically, i agree with you as well. with relativity out there it is pretty evident that what is instinctive does not match reality and i know that and i believe that but if you want to follow empirical reductionism to its logical conclusion that is some pretty depressing stuff.

if hume can know one thing and act another then so can i and its mostly his fault anyway.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I responded in kind to Mr. Pedantic (or was it Professor Fuzzy?) who was talking down to someone or other.

You see, when someone tries to talk down to someone and then posts bad English, it is incument, nay, essential, to point things out like that.

That's all.

But to review: the normal bluster of someone that does not have the ability to refute. the original statement of the 2002 drat being an excellent one stands.

Someone calling out another about his alleged inability to refute, ya see????

But you were actually pouting over something else, I suspect, and lashed out blindly and posted that weak response. Try again. I know you kin do it if you use your brain, dude.

Speaking of ammo, don't give me none.

he wasnt ever able to refute it. how is that talking down to someone? and yes you can call me professor fuzzy or sir either one.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Geocentrism was pimped by Aristotle however the pythagoreans and heraclitus a century before had demonstrated that the earth was round. This and euclidean geometry were the staples of greek thought in the aristocracy and as elitist as it sounds the plebs were uneducated, indentured serfs. Just because Aristotle is popular now does not mean that he was popluar then. Alexander was a macedonian and he didnt even like him.


The Romans via Cicero were very into Plato and Plato could give a frick about the sensible world as he was all about his doctrine of the good and universal supersensible world.

Aristotle and his views came at the end of classic greek civilization and as he was prone to do in many of his maxims, he would argue with conventional thought. Thats why he would constantly hammering the sophists because they were the establishment at that time.

In my opinion, stating that sophists were "the establishement" is not entirely accurate. Plato had a rather large following as well, and he was very antagnostic towards the sophists. He despised them for the most part.

The Greeks and Romans as a whole regarded sophists very much as we regard lawyers. We accord them a certain level of esteem, view them as a necessary components of civilized society, and respect them...to a point. We also see them as professional liars - people who argue using stylistic tricks and rhetorical flair rather than truth and substance. Sophists were saddled with many of these same stigmas. Greek citizens would actually pay them for lessons in rhetoric and argumentation, all the while perceiving them as tricksters and deceivers. Quite fittingly, then, sophist is the root word for both "sophisticated," which means eduated or experienced, and "sophistry," which describes the process of argumentation through fallacious reasoning.

Plato and Aristotle were very critical of Sophistic argumentation because they championed positivistic outlook. They believed that absolute truth could be found through reason and science and that rhetoric was only anathema to discovering truth because it's sole purpose was winning arguments...even wrong ones.

And believe it or not, all of this talk about Plato, Aristotle, and the sophists brings me back to my central premise: A logical argument is not always a truthful argument. Sophists believed that the logical content of an argument was unimportant and perhaps even non-existnent. They did not believe in absolute truth and, in some case, were very much opposed to a positivistic, scientific outlook. In their view, the only matter of importance was whether or not the audience viewed the argument as logical.

Regardless I have to argue very strongly against the greeks stating that the world was flat overall.

You should understand that geocentrism and a flat earth are not mutually inclusive. Pythagoras, for instance, was not always heliocentrist. Early in his life, he advocated a geocentric model even though he believed the earth to be round. And, interestingly enough, he came to adopt a heliocentric largely because of his belief in a "central fire," around which all bodies in the universe orbited. The concept of central fire was religious in nature as it was regarded by many as the house of Zeus.

 

[LowTech]

This means everyone is really bored. We're talking about the world being flat.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In my opinion, stating that sophists were "the establishement" is not entirely accurate. Plato had a rather large following as well, and he was very antagnostic towards the sophists. He despised them for the most part.

The Greeks and Romans as a whole regarded sophists very much as we regard lawyers. We accord them a certain level of esteem, view them as a necessary components of civilized society, and respect them...to a point. We also see them as professional liars - people who argue using stylistic tricks and rhetorical flair rather than truth and substance. Sophists were saddled with many of these same stigmas. Greek citizens would actually pay them for lessons in rhetoric and argumentation, all the while perceiving them as tricksters and deceivers. Quite fittingly, then, sophist is the root word for both "sophisticated," which means eduated or experienced, and "sophistry," which describes the process of argumentation through fallacious reasoning.

Plato and Aristotle were very critical of Sophistic argumentation because they championed positivistic outlook. They believed that absolute truth could be found through reason and science and that rhetoric was only anathema to discovering truth because it's sole purpose was winning arguments...even wrong ones.

And believe it or not, all of this talk about Plato, Aristotle, and the sophists brings me back to my central premise: A logical argument is not always a truthful argument. Sophists believed that the logical content of an argument was unimportant and perhaps even non-existnent. They did not believe in absolute truth and, in some case, were very much opposed to a positivistic, scientific outlook. In their view, the only matter of importance was whether or not the audience viewed the argument as logical.



You should understand that geocentrism and a flat earth are not mutually inclusive. Pythagoras, for instance, was not always heliocentrist. Early in his life, he advocated a geocentric model even though he believed the earth to be round. And, interestingly enough, he came to adopt a heliocentric largely because of his belief in a "central fire," around which all bodies in the universe orbited. The concept of central fire was religious in nature as it was regarded by many as the house of Zeus.

yeah i started to permute the two and sorry about that. as for the whole pythagorean thing you have to be careful as to what 'he' actually said. most writings atributed to him could not have been written while he wsa alive and as such were written by his disciples. regardless the apollo people were all heliocentric and seeing as appollo was a major diety heliocentrism was ingrained in their culture. most of what they said were good guesses anyway like the atom and so forth.

And the sophists werent just treated like lawyers; they were lawyers in essence. they were hired as arbiters and as counsels to settle disputes and as such were dramtically inconsistent. Youre talking about a civilization that was around for a few centuries and making claims as to what central thought was based on a few guys for the last 50 years of it. the sophists were culturally integral to athens and were around pretty much the whole time as teachers and arbiters.

you could even go so far as to say that plato and aristotle were sophists as well becaus ethey performed the same functions but just did not do it in the same manner as their forebears.

i never argued your original premise btw just how you came to it. if your original induction is wrong or incomplete you will never come to the truth. seeing that the most difficult part of logic is inducing truth then i would even say most logical arguments are not true. ive actually seen geometric proofs whee the shortest distance between two points is not a line and it still holds up to empirical testing.

heck i am not even sure if i buy into the idea of a absolute truth anyway or at lesat not one that you could ever prove. you have to have that in order for something to be true.

 

[Crown Royal]

The sophists get a bad rap because of a childrens fable written by Plato we have come to know as his Socratic dialogues.

And if you don't think those are written with strong rhetoric, idk what to tell you.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The sophists get a bad rap because of a childrens fable written by Plato we have come to know as his Socratic dialogues.

And if you don't think those are written with strong rhetoric, idk what to tell you.

exactly it would be akin to drawing conclusions about the dallas cowboys from what an eagles fan says at the vet.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The sophists get a bad rap because of a childrens fable written by Plato we have come to know as his Socratic dialogues.

And if you don't think those are written with strong rhetoric, idk what to tell you.

You are absolutely correct. When I was in graduate school, the history and theory of rhetoric was a required course in my major, and the first chapter in our text covered Aristotle.

Rhetoric is a large component of any mode of argumentation, even the most scientific.

For the record, I would've major in Dallas Cowboys history had they offered it. English was the next best option.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are absolutely correct. When I was in graduate school, the history and theory of rhetoric was a required course in my major, and the first chapter in our text covered Aristotle.

Rhetoric is a large component of any mode of argumentation, even the most scientific.

For the record, I would've major in Dallas Cowboys history had they offered it. English was the next best option.

The problem is Plato had an awful habit of passing his fiction on as fact. The Dialogues if Im not mistaken are portrayed as a 'historical' account of a converstaion between a sophist and Socrates where the sophist is made -fallaciously i might add- to look silly.

Most of the work that is still around of the sophists are the tragedies which do little to indicate what their viewpoints truly were.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

And the sophists werent just treated like lawyers; they were lawyers in essence. they were hired as arbiters and as counsels to settle disputes and as such were dramtically inconsistent. Youre talking about a civilization that was around for a few centuries and making claims as to what central thought was based on a few guys for the last 50 years of it.

To my knowledge, I've made no claims about central thought. I was merely sharing some general impressions that Greek Society shared about the Sophists. I certainly didn't mean to be all-inclusive.

you could even go so far as to say that plato and aristotle were sophists

Aristotle actually WAS a sophist at one point in time.

i never argued your original premise btw just how you came to it. if your original induction is wrong or incomplete you will never come to the truth. seeing that the most difficult part of logic is inducing truth then i would even say most logical arguments are not true. ive actually seen geometric proofs whee the shortest distance between two points is not a line and it still holds up to empirical testing.

I think our signals became crossed with my original premise. I wasn't claiming that heliocentrism was an unknown concept in the ancient world. I was simply saying that geocentrism was rooted in logically valid premises...albeit incorrect premises.

heck i am not even sure if i buy into the idea of a absolute truth anyway or at lesat not one that you could ever prove. you have to have that in order for something to be true.

In my opinion, every mode of inquiry, even science, involves rhetoric and some measure of faith.

 

[5Stars]

Fuzzyface wants to tell me...?

OK...if I worked in a grocery store yesterday, but they fired me and I no longer work at that grocery store, but I still stood outside of that grocery store...I guess I still work in the grocery business...even though I don't have a grocery job anymore?

:laugh1:

Some people can be smart, but, at the same time have no freaking common sense! Cookies and all...!!


:laugh2: I guess that's why they are fuzzy?


Bryant is not in the NFL right now...he has no contract, he has no job! Live with it Fuzzy...!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzyface wants to tell me...?

OK...if I worked in a grocery store yesterday, but they fired me and I no longer work at that grocery store, but I still stood outside of that grocery store...I guess I still work in the grocery business...even though I don't have a grocery job anymore?

:laugh1:

Some people can be smart, but, at the same time have no freaking common sense! Cookies and all...!!


:laugh2: I guess that's why they are fuzzy?


Bryant is not in the NFL right now...he has no contract, he has no job! Live with it Fuzzy...!

NFL players are contractors not employers. What you are talking about is an employer-emplyee relationship and that is not the case in the NFL.

A more apt analogy would be if a person was an electricians contractor and if he was done with a job but had not yet closed on a bid for the next job.

Even if the contractor had done a poor job on his last project you would not say that he was out of the business until he was unable to secure a new bid for some time. That is just how contracting works.

And again by your definition all of the restricted free agents would be out of the league as would a whole slew of other players that are waiting for the latter stages of free agency for a deal. That is what clearly goes against common sense.

What you need to deal with is you have no idea what you are talking about but I am sorry to hear you lost your job at the supermarket.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To my knowledge, I've made no claims about central thought. I was merely sharing some general impressions that Greek Society shared about the Sophists. I certainly didn't mean to be all-inclusive.



Aristotle actually WAS a sophist at one point in time.



I think our signals became crossed with my original premise. I wasn't claiming that heliocentrism was an unknown concept in the ancient world. I was simply saying that geocentrism was rooted in logically valid premises...albeit incorrect premises.




In my opinion, every mode of inquiry, even science, involves rhetoric and some measure of faith.

Fair enough. As for the label sophist I am not sure but I believe that may have been contrived ex post facto to label Sophocles and his ilk. I am not sure of that but I have always had thqat impression. I am sure you were to call Aristotle or Plato a fiollower of Sophocles that you one pissed off athenian on your hands.

when you use rhetoric im a bit confused as to what exactly you mean. Are you talking about language in and of itself or how the language is used in respect to an audience? i get the impression you are talking about one form in respect to the greeks and another in respect to reasoning in general.

If you never said it wsa the central opiion of the greeks then i mustve been mistaken. Im too tired to read the thread atm and i have no reason to not believe you. Much ado about nothing then. Has been an interesting discourse to say the least however. I need to brush up on Heraclitus and Herodotus though as I cant remember their significance and i know its in their somewhere.

In the end though logical conclusions are indeed not by definition true. Ive always felt that empirical proof >>>>> logical proof anyway and i dont give a damn what Hume had to say about empericism.

Anyway good night its time i got some sleep.

 

[Zaxor]

naja it is all greek to me

 

[iceberg]

I responded in kind to Mr. Pedantic (or was it Professor Fuzzy?) who was talking down to someone or other.

You see, when someone tries to talk down to someone and then posts bad English, it is incument, nay, essential, to point things out like that.

That's all.

But to review: the normal bluster of someone that does not have the ability to refute. the original statement of the 2002 drat being an excellent one stands.

Someone calling out another about his alleged inability to refute, ya see????

But you were actually pouting over something else, I suspect, and lashed out blindly and posted that weak response. Try again. I know you kin do it if you use your brain, dude.

Speaking of ammo, don't give me none.

speaking of grammar police...

 

[superpunk]

This thread went from dumb, to a little silly, to boring, to mentally ill, I think.

I find it funny that a schtick poster, (who is so opposed to having people tell him that they think his act is stupid that he includes a stock retort in his signature) is spending so much time in this thread criticizing the way scipio and fuzzy construct their reponses.

Maybe not so much funny as stupidly hypocritical, but you get the point.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

This thread went from dumb, to a little silly, to boring, to mentally ill, I think.

I find it funny that a schtick poster, (who is so opposed to having people tell him that they think his act is stupid that he includes a stock retort in his signature) is spending so much time in this thread criticizing the way scipio and fuzzy construct their reponses.

Maybe not so much funny as stupidly hypocritical, but you get the point.

Well step up to the plate, punk.

Always odd how you always respond to a thread that goes from dumb to a little silly to boring to mentally ill.


Just think, you could have been bashing, boring and wiseguying yourself across this site, but nooooo.
You find time to post a response to a thread you absolutely hate. Or at least find boring and insane.

let me remind you, punk, that the thread started as a It's gonna be Jerra's draft to mindless pedantism and discussions about evolution, astronomy, geocentrism etc.

So if you are looking for mindless, try the troika that is mindless. I started a legimiate thread.

But, of course, you have to add your 2 cents worth.

And what do we git? A defense of mindless pedantism and discussions about evolution, astronomy, geocentrism etc.

Don't try to read any more into this than was is staring you in the face.
Once a punk always a punk. You add nothing to this thread. You just deface it further with help from the pedantic faction (and one clueless bystander who, without understanding parts of it, decided to throw his disapproval into it.)

But back to you: Don't like it. Don't read it Blutto!!!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

And if you have time to respond, it will only take away from your time that is better spent at your cubicle.

 

[superpunk]

Well step up to the plate, punk.

Always odd how you always respond to a thread that goes from dumb to a little silly to boring to mentally ill.


Just think, you could have been bashing, boring and wiseguying yourself across this site, but nooooo.
You find time to post a response to a thread you absolutely hate. Or at least find boring and insane.

let me remind you, punk, that the thread started as a It's gonna be Jerra's draft to mindless pedantism and discussions about evolution, astronomy, geocentrism etc.

So if you are looking for mindless, try the troika that is mindless. I started a legimiate thread.

But, of course, you have to add your 2 cents worth.

And what do we git? A defense of mindless pedantism and discussions about evolution, astronomy, geocentrism etc.

Don't try to read any more into this than was is staring you in the face.
Once a punk always a punk. You add nothing to this thread. You just deface it further with help from the pedantic faction (and one clueless bystander who, without understanding parts of it, decided to throw his disapproval into it.)

But back to you: Don't like it. Don't read it Blutto!!!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

And if you have time to respond, it will only take away from your time that is better spent at your cubicle.

I wasn't defending anyone.

I was just pointing out that you're a hypocrite. Interestingly, you only further reinforced that notion with your above post, as if further reinforcement was needed. You can't bear people disapproving of your posting style (hence your signature, and ridiculous retorts when disapproval is expressed) yet you've taken away from your valuable time in this thread to counsel others on their pedantic postings.

Amazing.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I wasn't defending anyone.

I was just pointing out that you're a hypocrite. Interestingly, you only further reinforced that notion with your above post, as if further reinforcement was needed. You can't bear people disapproving of your posting style (hence your signature, and ridiculous retorts when disapproval is expressed) yet you've taken away from your valuable time in this thread to counsel others on their pedantic postings.

Amazing.

Usual drivel from you. Nothing new.

Ya know, if you were one of them little moles that pop their heads out of the electronic games, you'd see the shadow of a mallet coming down around now.

Splat!

Gotcha, punk.
I knew you'd respond.
You 30-minute lunch time is over. You can go back to your cubicle now.:laugh1:

 

[ndanger]

to Hume. I was going to mention him, but I know a lot of people can't stand him.

****** man, I thought he meant they should go HOME.Damn this cyber sypherin' is hard.