Improvement (For those that practice logic)

[Malac Reborn]

I will get right to the point. I want to know, whom, amongst this forum, are considered logically consistent posters, having few to no inconsistencies in the majority of their posts. My reason being for asking this is because of my own desire to improve my argumentation skills through debate. If you're interested, lemme know!

[Replicon]

I can't wait to see the flame wars that ensue from the name-dropping. But unfortunately, facts and logic are not the primary factors that drive argumentative skill. I think you can argue in favour of completely illogical things and win. If you want to work on your argumentation skills, it's about how you present the facts, and not the facts themselves. It's all up to interpretation.

[Malac Reborn]

I can't wait to see the flame wars that ensue from the name-dropping. But unfortunately, facts and logic are not the primary factors that drive argumentative skill. I think you can argue in favour of completely illogical things and win. If you want to work on your argumentation skills, it's about how you present the facts, and not the facts themselves. It's all up to interpretation. I am familiar with rhetoric, thx. Will you be one of my opponents?

[Philosopher8659]

I once made a help file for Lincoln debates forum. They had it online for a while, but that was a long while back, Secondly, common grammar is logic, so is arithmetic, algebra. I suggest the study of Plato, as he was working with a two-element metaphysics which Aristotle tried to explain, but failed at, however it is the foundation for all reasoning. He will not, however, teach you by rote. You really have to work at what he is at. That is the mental exercise.

[Malac Reborn]

I once made a help file for Lincoln debates forum. They had it online for a while, but that was a long while back, Secondly, common grammar is logic, so is arithmetic, algebra. I suggest the study of Plato, as he was working with a two-element metaphysics which Aristotle tried to explain, but failed at, however it is the foundation for all reasoning. He will not, however, teach you by rote. You really have to work at what he is at. That is the mental exercise. Thx. I had recently picked up a collection of works by Aristotle, but haven't consider Plato yet. Plato seems interesting from what I read. So, when I can, I'll look into his works also. A lot of reading to do but I'm sure it's worth it.

[Philosopher8659]

I post and correct audiobooks of Plato works. Aristotle couild not hold a candle to Plato. Plato's work is aimed at preserving the first organized system of psycho-therapy by correcting one's understanding and use of language. That is what he meant by virtue. The mind doing its own work.

[Maria92]

Plato's work is aimed at preserving the first organized system of psycho-therapy by correcting one's understanding and use of language. Plato: the original Grammar Nazi. If you want a better understanding of logic, brush up on common logical fallacies. If you know what to look for, you can avoid getting caught in your own trap. Here is one list I found: Fallacies

[Malac Reborn]

Plato: the original Grammar Nazi. If you want a better understanding of logic, brush up on common logical fallacies. If you know what to look for, you can avoid getting caught in your own trap. Here is one list I found: Fallacies I think you should read some of my past posts to get a glimpse of how knowledgeable I am already of the basic principles regarding this discipline before recommending me anything.... I am not asking for any resource material, instead, I am asking for opponents that I may consider "challenge-worthy", so that I may gain more experience with debating. The only people in this forum that I've seen competent enough to be considered as a challenge are; DuB, Xei, elucid, Philosopher8659 (when he's comprehensible), and Laughing Man. There may be more candidates, but these come folks come to mind.

[Siиdяed]

Propose a motion. Here and now. And take on all challengers. Make it about something religious for extra circuitosity.

[Maria92]

Propose a motion. Here and now. And take on all challengers. Make it about something religious for extra circuitosity. This. If all you want is a challenge, just bring up some hugely controversial or largely absurd subject, then defend your position from the hordes of challengers you'll soon face. No better way to learn than through first hand experience.

[Siиdяed]

Look through Noogah's threads, copy and paste the premise of one into what looks like a shiny new statement, and argue it. It will take a day for all DV to be arguing against you.

[Philosopher8659]

Propose a motion. Here and now. And take on all challengers. Make it about something religious for extra circuitosity. That is not a challenge. There is a history of real challenges. For example, how do you maintain truth in any language? How do you decide which is the true geometry and why? What are the fundamental mistakes that have been made in math theory and practice. Arguing with people when one has not demonstrated the foundation of logic, grammar to begin with is premature. Then the real challenge is constructing rewriting, step by step. Aristotle said it best, if you cannot find anyone to argue with, argue with yourself. Today we have a host of real pressing problems, all recorded in books, and a great deal of mythology that has been standardized as gospel. Teaching children non-sense. A real test is a book written to test your judgment, like the Judeo-Christian Scriupture--it tells you it is sealed to man's understanding--but the sealing is not mystical, it uses principles of logic we simply don't put into practice. When you read it, you often react to what is only in your mind. I demonstate a little of it in Language and Experience.

[Siиdяed]

...so propose a motion as to the maintenace of truth in any language. If you want to improve your argumentation skills (which was the premise of this thread) then do something better than sitting around looking for forum members to pop up and circle jerk over how much trivium they can cite.

[InvisibleWoman]

trivium

[Siиdяed]

:[ Grammar, logic and rhetoric are a cool triumverate okey.

[InvisibleWoman]

:[ Grammar, logic and rhetoric are a cool triumverate okey. How's term going, sweety?

[Siиdяed]

It's m'kay. I'm tired and have a busy day of discussing 'migrating fictions' ahead of me which might just be a way of privileged white students enjoying their racial guilt and 'really being able to empathise with them you know' but I don't like to say so. There's some Senecan tragic drama to talk about in the afternoon, though, so. You know. How's obesity holding up?

[InvisibleWoman]

Psh. Privileged white students, they're the worst. Obesity holds down a lot, actually.

[Siиdяed]

Try not holding it down. It'll help ease the waist.

[Philosopher8659]

...so propose a motion as to the maintenace of truth in any language. If you want to improve your argumentation skills (which was the premise of this thread) then do something better than sitting around looking for forum members to pop up and circle jerk over how much trivium they can cite. That is one of the reasons I make ebooks from old books. I make an identical copy in word, so I can post an excellent copy, I learn from it, and I will use them for critique. Many I have not posted. I gennerlly have too many projects in the fire, but I don't sit around. I just don't have time to do everything I want done. Some things I have to learn enough to do, I want to critique Bolyai, Done the ebook some time past, doing all his special notation was a pain, I want to convert the entire thing into simple algebra and critique. I like to target points in history ideas took a bad turn. I sit on the ebooks until I can work out the details so that I can at least understand it. Sides, I am a perfectionist. I need to see it step by step first. And, I have been single for some time now, and frankly, I get less than half done on my projects than what I use to, hard to concentrate on anything. A woman is the life of man, undeniable. I bought, scanned, OCR'd, and made ebooks out the entire Harvard Classics, I posted them on the Aruchive. I would like to make audio-books out of the entire thing also. Put up a site just for them. I have a few sets I would like to do this with. Many don't have time to sit and read, but there is mp3. I just have more I want done than I can do. These kinds of projects take a great deal of personal investment. But I am never bored, never have nothing to do. My little one man revolution against public tv. One of the most important lessons one should learn by Lucid Dreaming--One is generally not told what to do, but they are given an environment in which they can make choices. This is why it is important to provide matrial in the environment by which people can choose.

[Malac Reborn]

...so propose a motion as to the maintenace of truth in any language. If you want to improve your argumentation skills (which was the premise of this thread) then do something better than sitting around looking for forum members to pop up and circle jerk over how much trivium they can cite. I actually had something else in mind. Thank you, however, for telling me what I must do to improve my argumentation skills. I am aware of what I intended to do, not that it's big deal for anyone else. I just wanted to identify specifically those that I consider competent in debate, so that I may attempt to pull them in a topic and increase my likelihood of debating against them.

[Philosopher8659]

Plato: the original Grammar Nazi. Simple arithmetic is a grammar system. What would the world be like without standards in goods commerce that it brings? Now extrapolate, human social commerce has to be based on just as accurate common grammar. Plato extrapolated further, the foundation of psychology itself. Language, all language, is convered uner the term Logic, Psychologic really is not different than logic. Virtue of the human mind is linguistically determined. Thus, the live and let live, as far as mental functions go, is only the statement, I don't give a rats ass who is mad nor how it affects their life or mine. Which reduces to, I don't care about life at all. I do care, I am a greedy freaking bastard. Calling one man who cared a great deal about mankind, a Nazi, is a statement made by a fool. His method is getting the user of a language to simply comply with its principles. Principles normal people do not think about, nor realize how much gibberish they speak, think, and do on its behalf. Christ put his method in other terms "Seek first the kingdom of heaven." Just a metaphor. Plato was one of the few in history who realized to even learn a leanguage was a standardization in human will. This being the case, implied is a standarization in human psychology. The key to a civil society.

[Alric]

Instead of looking for people who are good at debating, you should look for people who really know a specific topic and who has strong opinions on it. You will find it far more challenging to debate a specialist in a topic, than a person who is just generally good at debates, on a random topic.

[Clyde Machine]

I can't wait to see the flame wars that ensue from the name-dropping. But unfortunately, facts and logic are not the primary factors that drive argumentative skill. I think you can argue in favour of completely illogical things and win. If you want to work on your argumentation skills, it's about how you present the facts, and not the facts themselves. It's all up to interpretation. Instead of looking for people who are good at debating, you should look for people who really know a specific topic and who has strong opinions on it. You will find it far more challenging to debate a specialist in a topic, than a person who is just generally good at debates, on a random topic. Hey Alric, you should read Replicon's post. I can't say much to the idea that I'd be a good debater, but my need to ensure an idea/set of ideas has been conveyed properly to another does open my toolbox of devices that let me take what might become/already has become a debate and turn it into a meaningful conversation where all parties involved learn something and don't slit each others' throats in the process.

[Philosopher8659]

I think you can argue in favour of completely illogical things and win. . Self referential fallacy. Most do not take into account two factors, the convention of names, and the fact that predication is the inverse function of abstraction. The principles of any logic are the same, no matter if arithmetic or common grammar. Not being aware of first principles, and normally people are not, does not mean that their lack of comprehension dictate the fundamental principles of grammar. Most believe that a convention of names rests upon their abstraction, which is a fallacy. The convention rests with the standard from which the abstraction is made. Standards of Weights and Measures are an example. If one truly follow the principles of common grammar, the results will be the same for everyone, just as the resluts of 3 + 2 will always be the same. A reason one does not see this, is because they were not taught, and were not bright enough to figure it out for themselves. In the simple, grammar consists in giving your word and being bright enough to keep it.