newpolitics
vegan atheist indy
- Sep 27, 2008
- 2,931
- 262
- 48
What I said is that logic is, in and of itself, argument. You misquoting and twisting what I said does not make it wrong. It does, however, make you wrong.
You're so frustrating to argue with, man. Would you please make some sense here?
You are saying logic=argument. I am saying, that is absolutely false. Where have did I go wrong?
You said this:
You are clearly trying to establish equivalency for two different words and use them interchangeably. Do you stick by this? So when I say to someone, "you are very logical," I could also say "you are very argumentative" and it would mean the same thing? No. So stop fucking that logic is argument. Logic is not argument. It is used in argument. Get it???!!Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.
Stop acting like you know philosophy. You don't. When did you study it, 40 years ago?
It is frustrating because you are wrong. When you argue with someone you are reasoning with them in order to convince them that you are correct. Logic is the study of reasoning, and learning to use logic means you learn to argue.
I am not the one pretending that I understand anything. No one understands philosophy, they use it.
Okay. I'm done with you man. We are arguing over such minor details, but very important, and basic ones, and its impossible to get anywhere with you. I understand that logic is used in argumentation, and is in fact, central to it. That does make it equivalent to logic. That is illogical to say!! You are committing a composition fallacy, essentially, saying that logic, which is applied within arguments, is equivalent to argumentation itself. That's nonsensical and implies a dual definition that contradicts itself, also violating the law of noncontradiction with respect to the definition of logic.
Now you're taking this "I dont know anything" buddhist approach. Get real dude. We have to establish definitions for things, by the very laws of logic, such as the law of Identity. Logic is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, and what it isn't, is argumentation.
You say that I am wrong, but you can't show me how I am wrong. You are equivocating on the definition of logic. First you use to to mean that which is used in arguments, and then you also say logic is argumentation itself. You can't have both. Which is it?
Last edited: