Uhm....no. I’m not at all suggesting you discuss issues of philosophy - which would get boring fast and most people aren’t interested. But there is one aspect that most people could use - and vitally need. Rhetoric.
I suggest Aristotle’s Fallacies (Sophistical Refutations). It is Rhetoric - not Philosophy. It is one of the most important and fundamental education tools in existence. It has been overlooked the last 200 years, particularly in Anglo-America. I think it was decreed that the hoi polloi should not be so armed.
Aristotles Fallacies is the basis of the concept of the Grammar school. Rhetoric was Aristotle, and the Fallacies were as important as the alphabet. I think the reason it was fundamental and why it has been omitted will become obvious if you read and understand.
( factoid from genre Detective novels: Sophistical Refutations was the basis of the intuitional logic Conan Doyle wove into his stories of Sherlock Homles)
Again, it is a book of method - concerning logic...not a book about mysticism, religion, spirits or etc.
It is the most important book of logic in history. It is the fundamental manual on the critique of disinfo.
Fallacies teaches one how to recognize fallacy, errors of logic, flat out lies. and discern the truth or lack of - in an argument. If you are ever in an crucial argument - such as a court - using and recognizing the tenets of Aritstotles fallacies is on the same level as the writ of the law. If you recognize a logical flaw in an attorneys argument, and all attorneys are familiar with the precepts of ‘Sophistical Refutations’ - your objection will be recognized and will prevail upon citing the logical fallacy listed in ‘Fallacies’. Every lawyer in the land knows the terms of Aristotles Fallacies - usually in the original greek - most of the foreign terms (Greek & Latin) terms you hear in a court are derived from Aritstotles comments on Law and the Fallacies.
If you are in a personal argument or debate - the principals of the ‘Fallacies’ - (if your argument is correct - (’Fallacies’ is rhetoric, not sophistry) can allow you to prevail, diagnose, correct and understand any argument you encounter
It is the original bullshit detector, conversational jujitsu blackbelt and mental belt-fed AK-47 to destroy your enemies and win the chicks. In this sense it is almost infallible.
Take for poor example the general coverage of ‘Colonia Dignidad’ . Although we are too removed from the facts to do anything but infer on the case itself, we can absolutely dissect the arguments themselves for logical fallacies and this will give us an idea of the merits of the case, overall.
To begin with. completely elementary, all coverage takes the angle of an accusation - it is all ‘ad hominum’ - ‘against the man’. The premise is really not that he was a torturer - as you would point out - the premise is that he was german, and a medic in the Luftwaffle - which leads through several stages to the conclusion of innocence or guilt....except in this case it’s not a court verdict. but an article - so, of true or false, in terms of the article - then innocence or guilt, of the man.
‘Against the Man’ is the idea that the character of the man, or charges against that man, are proof of guilt. We generally recognize an ad hominum attacks were the accuser stresses the character of the accused, rather than the likelyhood of committing the act -, or the act is presented as a conclusion to a sequence of non-related but directed characteristics, generally presented as charges, that led to the inference of guilt. These are considered logical fallacies...for obvious reasons.
Ad Hominum arguments raise strong indications that the accusations are false, and that the accuser is aware that their premise is flawed and needs to be concealed within a string of interlocking inferences.
The article you post here and all the others I have read are all extremely flawed in logical consistency. In fact there is no logical consistency. And it is this same flaw in consistency that is consistent. Which is why I say these articles have been conditioned. They keep strictly to a mold.
This is why I state you should read Aristotles Fallacies. You bring nothing to the debate when you pass fallacious logic around. It is a mental virus and a weakness. You make people stupider and spread brainlessness . If you could bring the impartial analysis of logic to subjects like this - you could be perhaps the first intelligent, logical ,and bipartisan analysis to treat various issues. That would be brainfood.
