John The Great said:
Just some other problems with what he has written. He stated he hasnt set out to disprove my thesis or argument, however he clearly has. He has tried to argue that points werent substantiated thus they were wrong, and he has argued several times that there was no cause for the holocaust etc. Thus he has set out to disprove my thesis, he just cant seem to get around to it.
No, I said that I did not set out to prove that your conclusion is wrong. I set out to prove that your argument was flawed. Read what people write more carefully:
MoonlightSonata said:
I didn't set out to prove the conclusion was wrong, I set out to prove that your argument is flawed. Which I did.
John The Great said:
he claims his argument is based in logic, however one would say that is an appeal to authority, which we must remember, is a branch of philosophy, and as he wrote, it is simply a theory, not a truth.
As I said, you are welcome to put up an argument against reason. But you will fail miserably. No-one has come up with a good argument for irrationality.
John The Great said:
yes he did appeal to his philosophy course in his last comment. He in fact mentioned it more than once, and it was this appeal to authority, that he hoped would get everyone on side, as they would feel there was some authority to his claims.
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Appealing to authority does not advance your argument. It in no way proves the validity of your claims. It is a major fallacy for obvious reasons. Suppose Einstein said that all black people should be killed. He is a genius, but does quoting Einstein in support of the argument that all black people should be killed help? Of course not. You're just going to have to bite the bullet and admit you're wrong for appealing to authority. It takes a wise man to admit when he's wrong. I won't think the worse of you for it. But continuing to believe that citing someone as proof that the argument is valid will not get you anywhere.
John The Great said:
The straw man theory is evident here. He argued it was unacceptable under any major ethical system and mentioned specifically christianity, and 'thou shall not kill'(appeal to authority). i then mentioned that it was accepted under Catholic Docrtine, thus his claim was false, and that there are indeed over 1 billion catholics, so it is obvioulsy a considerably large ethical following.
You are mistaken. I did not appeal to an authority to prove a point relying on that authority. I referred to Christian morality to show you that it was against
that moral theory. That is not appealing to authority.
John The Great said:
his analogy of the world being flat is ad hominem.
Um, no. An ad hominem attack is an attack to the person.
John The Great said:
He did mention all ethics before(appeal to the majority), and this has been proven wrong with the catholic morality.
1. Actually I said: "any credible normative ethical theory."
2. I doubt it would be acceptable under Catholic doctrine. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they don't approve, morally speaking, of killing people.
John The Great said:
"Um, endangering the existence of the Nazis? How so? Even if they were killing then, torturing them and locking them away in concentration camps would not have been the best option." A baseless comment. It is of course, only his interpreatation, and yet again it appeals to authority. If you wish to know how so, then read Mein Kampf yourself.
Actually that is a baseless comment. You say that I am wrong, and to see why I should read Mein Kampf? You have not made an argument at all. All you have done is refer me to a book.
[Besides which, as to gleaning whatever insight I might from Mein Kampf, it would be like asking us to read Ptolemy to see why the Earth is the centre of the solar system.]
John The Great said:
"No it hasn't. I am well read in Utilitarianism. If you are unsure about it, go read John Stuart Mill for the basic concepts and follow up with some of Peter Singer's works." appealing to authority as stated hitherto.
That was only part of my argument. I explained why it did not meet the Utilitarian standard prior to that comment. That comment therefore, did not rely on my own authority. It was merely for your own interest and for your own learning so that you might get a better understanding yourself.
John The Great said:
"You make claims like "it has been established" without saying why. Again, you do not back up your contentions with argument or evidence." Sorry there. i thought I had made this very clear, it was expounded by St. Augustine and subsequently became Christian Doctrine, Canon Law. That is how it has been established.
How what has been established?
Just because St. Augustine says something does not make it true.
John The Great said:
"Appealing to authority does not in any way prove your point because it does not rely on the validity of the argument, rather on the personal character of a person, which is irrelevant to the truth value of your contentions." Perhaps you can clarify. If this person's character is only established because of the validity of their arguments, such as Aristotle, who is remembered for his philosophy, then surely it adds credibilty to an argument to cite the works and resoning of this great person. As the fame, has only arisen due to the thruthful value of his arguments.
Refer to my comments on this above.
John The Great said:
"They cited their arguments and expounded, criticised and explored them. They did not just cite their names." ohhh. im sorry but you havent read st. Augustines City Of God evidently. He only briefly cited the argument of Aristotle, as i have here, and then used it to support his arguments, as did Martin Luther and Zwingli. He did not expound, criticise or explore the arguments. Parhaps you can read Aristotle's metaphysics, then read the City of God, and you will understand my point.
Again, you actually make no argument yourself. You just drop names. You just did it then. "Read these, by these famous people. That's why I'm right." I can only assume that you don't understand their arguments and theories enough to be able to articulate them.
John The Great said:
"It is very easy if you are an atheist." If you are an atheist, you will deny Jesus' divinity, but not his importance as a great man and contributer to ethics etc. hence its not so very easy.
What are you trying to show by talking about Jesus? I don't see the relevance.
John The Great said:
"You are confusing history and philosophy. History involves the recording of facts about the past. Philosophy deals with reason and truth about the world. Citing historians as observers and recorders of facts is one thing. Citing someone as proof that a concept is true is another, completely fallacious thing to do." Sorry again there. you were very vague with your original arguing, that this applied to all arguments. Now we can see it doesnt apply to historical debates, just to philosophy. So why are you involving it here, in relation to Hitler. That is historical, as are the records of the justifications. If you believe they involve ethical questions etc. then once again this would apply to all historical debates, as they all involve philosophical aspects.
Wrong. You are obfuscating the point by saying "historical debate". It applies to all arguments. But historians accounts of something are
evidence, not arguments. It is the data relied upon when making arguments. For example, John Howard wears glasses. If we had no photos or recordings of Howard in a hundred years, we would rely on the historians to tell us these facts. But if someone said "The fact that John Howard wore glasses shows he was a smart man" then that is an
argument based on facts. You cannot rely on the quotes of some historians to prove the logic of that claim.
John The Great said:
"Yes, I study lots of subjects that involve analysing philosophical arguments by philosophers and I don't have any clue as to what philosophers think" Interesting, as before you were studying a major in philosophy and you apparently did know what philosophers think.
For your enlightenment, the "
" icon denotes sarcasm.
John The Great said:
"No they would not. What I said was a general statement that obviously implied that I was talking about moral justification." It was obvious was it? Actually it was anything but, if you really believe that is what you meant. Of course, the moral justification has been discussed previously, and you said there was no cause, not there was no justification. They are different.
You have made it clear that you did not understand what I was saying. I highly doubt other people would have mistaken my intent, but now you know. Happy? Good.
John The Great said:
"Nietzsche's will to power is simply an argument. It does not mean that it is true." Well, Ill leave it to you to read Nietzsche's work and his justifications for such a thought. Of course, the same theory applies to this ridiculous 'reasoning' you use.
Again, no argument. You just say "read Nietzsche". It leads me to believe you don't really understand him yourself.
As for my "ridiculous reasoning", it is only natural that you feel confronted by a deeper understanding of logic and reasoning than you are used to. Should you choose to study any course in reason at all, you will come to understand. But I have demonstrated the justification for what underpins these fallacies. I have shown why appealing to majority, authority, or making ad hominem attacks do not prove anything. You simply choose to stubbornly ignore those explanations.
John The Great said:
"any experience with the philosophical community. Ask any lecturer in philosophy in any university in this country about what it means to appeal to authority and they will tell you all about fallacies of argument. Enlightening learning which you would do well to examine should you choose to study reason or logic." well, I evidently have experience with the 'philosophical community' merely by my reading of such philosophy, and yes, I have had discussions with University lecturers in regards to philosophy. Your asking lecturers is both appealing to the majority, and appealing to authority, with no justification. I hope your lecturer doesnt read this site. Your last comment is ad hominem and baseless, as of course you cant really know that can you.
I did not rely on those comments to support my argument. I say that you should ask lecturers because you will benefit from their knowledge, but that's just in your interest.
John The Great said:
"But they all use reason" appealing to majority. Not to mention, you cant be sure that all do, so its baseless. In fact people are beginning to criticise that aspect of Nietzsche's work here for lacking reason.
Um, yes they all do attempt to use reason. No that is not appealing to majority. You have taken my quote out of context. That was referring to the comment you made about me contending that philosophers all think the same thing (which I did not contend, only that they all used reason).
King of Helview said:
By the way Moonlight Sonata you actually participated in your own falacy of logic, I believe it is called "tu touquoque". You assumed his arguement had no validity and couldnt be taken seriously as he fell victim to insulting others. Falling foul to a falacy of logic
LOL. Nice try, but it is actually called "tu quoque", literally meaning "you too", not "tu touquoque". And no that is not what it means.
Tu quoque is basically a claim of hypocrisy. It is an invalid way to argue against someone because it does not refute their argument. For example:
- Moonlight: Smoking is bad for you.
- King of Helview: But you smoke!
Just because Moonlight smokes, it does not invalidate his argument.
Tu quoque is a form of the ad hominem fallacy. The irony is that you just committed it by making that comment.
