Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

The Foolish method Art of Foolery

Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 11:40:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
On Sophistry, a fools last lesson 

Sophistry it the art of using fallacies or irrational techniques to persuade people, these techniques are called Sophisms, and thus some who relies on then or uses them to persuade other are Sophists.

For the Sophist calls himself "wise", to give the appearance of wise or whatever positive they self-claim. The strength of the sophist depends on appearances. There is a big difference between appearances and what actually IS. E.g. we might recognize a mirage, that is an appearance, which is and illusion.

Secondly a Sophist, who doesn't know they are a sophist, I call Sophist goons, they are the puppets of the Master Sophist and they get persuaded, moved and motivated, by them.
Master sophists can be recognized in everyday life. Usually in the form of Politian's, Priest, lawyer's marketers, and some teachers even. Why? Because Sophism works better then reason, when there is lots of people because the audience doesn't have to think, it they think they can spot the Sophism.
Some examples: "change is good" no not always if you get cancer or aids or killed, it is certainly a change but it is shitty change. So we need to demand why a particular change is good.

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" there is the is an emotion but we never fear the emotions we fear that which threatens us our life..

"Two heads are better than one" not really if one is Osama and the other is a Christine infidel.. You might get murdered.

Literally any political quote can be easily debunked. But, they were useful in the moment to persuade people fast, even though they are illusions.

When debating a Sophist makes good use of connotative definitions, like ferocious evil or good, or, better, looks, attack somebodies integrity rather than the argument. Because by doing this it gives the audience a negative appearance of their opposition rather than focus on the worth of their argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL