The problem about philosophy. The sophist in all of us.

[Random]

I think there is some confusion about what exactly sophism is. Sophism does not require intent. Intent cannot be determined without knowing an individual's motivation with absolute certainty, which is an impossibility. Sophism is synonymous with a bad habit (jumping to conclusions). Intuition is not infallible, so even intuition can be synonymous with sophistry. I would say sophistry is philosophy's accountability deficit,

 

This is my first post here, I have not yet introduced myself in the "introduce yourself" thread, I just really wanted to jump in.
There is a reason I titled this thread as I did. I have more to share on this topic, i.e. I can and would like to elaborate further, but I thought I would throw this out there and see what boomerangs back in my face before I do.

 

Cheers and thanks,

Alex

 

[vahleeb]

Hi Alex,

 

I'm also quite a newbie here on the boards. I'd bite on the subject, but you'd have to give me more. 

 

Your first sentence seems to establish that there is some unclarity about Sophism. If there's unclarity, it would help (at least me) that you would first state the definition (by the book), the general accepted perceptions of it while highlighting what's confusing about them, followed by your point of view.

 

Cheers!

Vbe.

[Random]

Since no one commented yet, I will elaborate further...

 

It is a beautiful thing when rational logical thought is used as the methodology for any disagreement. Sophism does not require a conclusion or statement about reality to be false. That said, if Person A has reached a conclusion, even if that conclusion matches your own (Person B's) position and is true, if Person A cannot (or will not) break his reasoning down to first principals, Person A is skipping logical rational progressive steps and is reaching that conclusion by an irrational process, be it emotional, intuition, or whatever. It must be that Person A is using sophistry. Person B is less likely to call Parson A a sophist, but only because Person A agrees with Person B's conclusion. Here is where you would give an example, like, in other words, if Person A said that the earth is not flat, I read it in a book. Well, last I checked, a book cannot be assumed infallible (unless it's the Bible of course, lol). So unless Person A is able to lay out the reasoned concepts from inside the book (I'm assuming a scientific book about the round-earth here), is Person A not just skipping some integral information and jumping to an irrational conclusion, ignoring for a moment the possibility of reasons from outside the book. I mean, even if Person A might say (and with some good reason), that the scientists who wrote the book told me so, that doesn't prove his case either, the earth isn't not flat because scientists said so. So from where did Person A draw his conclusion? Fundamentally, if you are unable to break your argument down to first principals, you have skipped important empirical evidence and logically reasoned steps to jump to a conclusion. Correct? In spreading the information that the earth is not flat, without the ability to explain exactly why it isn't flat (with reasoning and evidence), regardless that he is absolutely correct, is this person not being a sophist? (I.e. It looks like philosophy, but it isn't.) Another way of saying this would be that the correct answer doesn't give you the moral high-ground (the sophist), but the ability to reason it down to first principals in order to arrive at the correct answer (the philosophical method), is what gives you the moral high-ground. Correct? One could argue that sophistry requires intent, but to the person on the other side of the debate, that perspective is irrelevant and impossible to determine with absolute certainty anyway. I've heard Stefan say (paraphrasing here, with accuracy I hope) that sophism is the absence of the ability to break a statement about reality down to these first principals, and that the sophist will cloak their argument with the appearance of philosophy. If that is true, then it should also be true regardless whether the original statement about reality is true or false. A false statement about reality cannot be broken down to first principals, obviously, but that by itself does not prove a deceptive intent. The intent is therefor irrelevant.
We are emotional beings, there is no way to get around that fact. When Person B says Person A cuts me off in conversation repeatedly, therefor Person A doesn't respect me. Is that not a sophistic thing to say? Person B is skipping a bunch of other reasons for that behaviour and is jumping to a conclusion based on only one piece of evidence. Maybe Person A is just socially awkward and doesn't understand conversational etiquette, or is nervous, or too exited. Without an outside perspective though, Person B might not be aware that they are even doing this (we've all been there, no question). We all have a tendency to sophism then. It's like the eighth deadly sin; a bad habit to be avoided and broken.

 

Therefor the definition of sophism would be better described: The inability or unwillingness to use basic first principals of the philosophical method in logical reasoning, i.e. assume nothing and build an argument from there. The term is usually used in the derogatory, but there is no necessity for intent.

 

Agree? Disagree? Does it make sense? Truth? Comments welcome. (Had to increase the font size, for tired eyes.)

 

Alex
 

[vahleeb]

Hi Alex,

 

It's clear from the comment that you posted it before I had my comment approved.

 

But even in it's absence, aren't you just sort of "sophiscising" with your second post? What is the by the book definition of sophism? What are the general perceptions that make it confusing? The rest, i understand that you have stated in your second post.

[Des]

Principle/principal

 

soph·ism  (sŏf′ĭz′əm)

n.

1. A plausible but fallacious argument.

2. Deceptive or fallacious argumentation

 

If definition above is accepted, then there needs to be the form of an argument (e.g.: Nearly 7 billion humans can tell you that the earth is not flat, therefore it is correct to say that the earth is not flat"). The statement "The earth is not flat" is without argumentative form, and does not qualify as sophistry.

 

By definition 1 you can call my above example of argumentum ad populum sophistry - without reference to intent.

 

Definition 2 implies intent. How do we make a determination of intent (the intent internal to the mind of another person)? We guess it. That is what happens in a murder trial. If we are honest, we admit we do not know the intent of the killer. We just guess that that reason plus evidence points very strongly in the direction of the intent being murderous (or it does not point strongly enough in that direction). Does not mean there is nothing rational in the process of guessing, just means that at the end it is still a guess.

 

Why do we do reasoning and philosophy? because we predict that philosophy will lead to some personally beneficial outcomes compared to doing sophistry or religion. Do I know that philosophy will benefit me personally, more than religious or political machinations could benefit me? No, it is a guess. I hope it is the correct guess. I could give reasons, which you could also probably give, in support of my guess, but it (by "it" I mean my/your guess) is not knowledge, it is the end purpose of knowledge: The end purpose of knowledge is to provide the best guess of the decision of most personal benefit, out of all possible decisions. The purpose is prediction.

[Random]

Your first post is absolutely valid, vahleeb. It calls for clarity! And so does your second post call for clarity with the suggestion that I myself might be indulging in sophistry. No, I don't take offence. We must all be skeptical and question everything!

 

The problem does lie with the definition of sophism itself; wherever you look for a true definition of sophism, the different dictionaries all have different definitions, and these definitions have evolved over the centuries. It seems to have a negative derogatory implication today, but it didn't start out like that. There is no clear definitive definition of sophism/sophist/sophistry that I can find. If I am mistaken, please enlighten me.

 

Lets for a moment get our definition from the Encyclopedia Britannica and call it definitive:

Sophist, any of certain Greek lecturers, writers, and teachers in the 5th and 4th centuries bce, most of whom traveled (sic.) about the Greek-speaking world giving instruction in a wide range of subjects in return for fees.

 

That definition does not by itself have any negative connotation. Right? But the fact that these Greek philosophers were paid, opens the very real possibility that the philosophy practised by these philosophers was influenced by whoever paid the most money, perhaps with deceptive intent, i.e. looks like philosophy, but isn't. Which is how sophism got it's negative connotation. But that doesn't automatically mean that these philosophers were deceptive all the time, every time they opened their mouths, which is what is implied by the label sophist. Sophism is transient. One conversation might employ deception; another conversation might not. So you really can't be a sophist (in the negative sense), unless you are consistently employing some kind of deception over all or the majority of your arguments. So sophist, as a label, can be very misleading. An individual might engage in sophism in one argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a sophist in all conversations. To deceive without intent creates an oxymoron, because deception does require that intent, implicitly. The oxymoron is unintentional deception.

In no definition that I have read did I see that sophism requires intent, implicitly. So, through the rational laid out in my second post I hoped to show that intent is irrelevant and impossible to determine with certainty without a heck of a lot of corroborating evidence.

The question is really this: Does sophism require intent? If so, fine, but add that point to the universal definition. Then we can go forward using sophism as a label for specious disingenuous arguments which are clearly negative (bad), and there is no such thing as unintentional sophism. Right now, today, that information is not clear. If sophism does not require intent, then it becomes closer to a bad habit that should be avoided, and unintentional sophism is possible.

So, if we agree that the definition of sophism is the appearance of philosophy without the ability or willingness to use the philosophical method of first principals. We must also define whether sophism requires intent. Unwillingness is suggestive evidence of intent; ability has nothing at all to do with intent.

If I go around saying that the earth is flat, and give you all kinds of philosophical sounding reasons why it is flat, my intent might not be to deceive you, my faith and intuition, including one or two scientific optical anomalies, make me conclude the earth is flat. Am I not engaging in sophism? I am a sophist (in that instance), because of my inability to break my argument down that makes it so, not that I had intent to deceive.

 

I hope that makes the point better understood. Articulation is of paramount importance.

 

Wow, when I started typing, I didn't think my post was going to be so long winded. Lol.

 

Cheers,

Alex

[Random]

 

Principle/principal

 

soph·ism  (sŏf′ĭz′əm)

n.

1. A plausible but fallacious argument.

2. Deceptive or fallacious argumentation

 

If definition above is accepted, then there needs to be the form of an argument (e.g.: Nearly 7 billion humans can tell you that the earth is not flat, therefore it is correct to say that the earth is not flat"). The statement "The earth is not flat" is without argumentative form, and does not qualify as sophistry.

 

By definition 1 you can call my above example of argumentum ad populum sophistry - without reference to intent.

 

Definition 2 implies intent. How do we make a determination of intent (the intent internal to the mind of another person)? We guess it. That is what happens in a murder trial. If we are honest, we admit we do not know the intent of the killer. We just guess that that reason plus evidence points very strongly in the direction of the intent being murderous (or it does not point strongly enough in that direction). Does not mean there is nothing rational in the process of guessing, just means that at the end it is still a guess.

 

Why do we do reasoning and philosophy? because we predict that philosophy will lead to some personally beneficial outcomes compared to doing sophistry or religion. Do I know that philosophy will benefit me personally, more than religious or political machinations could benefit me? No, it is a guess. I hope it is the correct guess. I could give reasons, which you could also probably give, in support of my guess, but it (by "it" I mean my/your guess) is not knowledge, it is the end purpose of knowledge: The end purpose of knowledge is to provide the best guess of the decision of most personal benefit, out of all possible decisions. The purpose is prediction.

 

 

Hello there, Des.

 

If we go with the definition that you found as the valid one, intent is not implicitly implied, it is only in the second definition where intent is invoked, therefor intent is not a prerequisite (required) for sophism. (Definition 1 is an example of sophism without intent.) Correct?

 

Yes, intent can be guessed, but the guess makes the accusation of sophism rude (no more, no less), and therefor like a bad habit... to be avoided. Whatever rational you come up with that supports it, its still a guess and cannot lead to a solid conclusion, otherwise the same could be said regarding stupidity. I mean, you wouldn't want to be wrong about it. Right?

 

I cannot at all agree with your statement, "Do I know that philosophy will benefit me personally, more than religious or political machinations could benefit me? No, it is a guess."

 

Philosophy has very little to do with the conclusions that philosophy is able to produce, it has everything to do with the methodology, i.e. it's the journey not the destination.

It has nothing to do with prediction or educated guesses. So to guess that philosophy will benefit is like saying I guess mathematics will benefit. Mathematics is the methodology to reach conclusions using numbers; philosophy is the methodology to reach conclusions using words. Me, I can say that I know conclusively that philosophy will benefit me personally including anyone else who employs the methodology. There is no grey area between. I will say though, that I guess philosophy will be of more use (benefit) to me than mathematics or music, but the value of those disciplines is quite indisputable through the use of reason and empirical evidence, very unlike religion. The methodology employed in religion has a lot to do with deception, demagoguery and sophism, all kinda mashed together. And just like it is possible to make a mistake in mathematics, it is also possible to err in philosophy, no question.

 

I hope that makes some better sense now. Agree? Disagree? More/other questions? Lemme kno.

 

Regards,

Alex

[utopian]

Don't have time to get all through this thread, but it seems relevant to my interests. If anyone cares for my two cents, I have my own problem with philosophy. It is a manifestation of the neocortex, the highest intelligence of the human mind. Unfortunately, philosophy ignores and denies humanity, in the aspect of survival and replication; the paleocortex and the lymbic system. What we SHOULD do according to philosophy, is not what we SHOULD do according to our evolutionary humanity. Case in point, Stephan likes to talk about the idea that if a woman is unfit to be a mother, you should not sleep with her. Well ok philosophy, that makes sense, but if that was followed to the rule, you would probably eradicate 90% of earth's population. While the philosophy of only allowing the highest quality people to reproduce is ideal, it forgets the aspect of the philosophy of survival of the fittest, in that the survival of humanity should be pursued to its full extent by producing as many humans possible and spreading across the universe.

 

Long story short, I have been conflicted for a while now, that philosophy is ideal, but impractical.

[Random]

 

Principle/principal

 

soph·ism  (sŏf′ĭz′əm)

n.

1. A plausible but fallacious argument.

2. Deceptive or fallacious argumentation

 

If definition above is accepted, then there needs to be the form of an argument (e.g.: Nearly 7 billion humans can tell you that the earth is not flat, therefore it is correct to say that the earth is not flat"). The statement "The earth is not flat" is without argumentative form, and does not qualify as sophistry.

 

By definition 1 you can call my above example of argumentum ad populum sophistry - without reference to intent.

 

Definition 2 implies intent. How do we make a determination of intent (the intent internal to the mind of another person)? We guess it. That is what happens in a murder trial. If we are honest, we admit we do not know the intent of the killer. We just guess that that reason plus evidence points very strongly in the direction of the intent being murderous (or it does not point strongly enough in that direction). Does not mean there is nothing rational in the process of guessing, just means that at the end it is still a guess.

 

Why do we do reasoning and philosophy? because we predict that philosophy will lead to some personally beneficial outcomes compared to doing sophistry or religion. Do I know that philosophy will benefit me personally, more than religious or political machinations could benefit me? No, it is a guess. I hope it is the correct guess. I could give reasons, which you could also probably give, in support of my guess, but it (by "it" I mean my/your guess) is not knowledge, it is the end purpose of knowledge: The end purpose of knowledge is to provide the best guess of the decision of most personal benefit, out of all possible decisions. The purpose is prediction.

 

 

Hello there, Des.

 

If we go with the definition that you found as the valid one, intent is not implicitly implied, it is only in the second definition where intent is invoked, therefor intent is not a prerequisite (required) for sophism. (Definition 1 is an example of sophism without intent.) Correct?

 

Yes, intent can be guessed, but the guess makes the accusation of sophism rude (no more, no less), and therefor like a bad habit... to be avoided. Whatever rational you come up with that supports it, its still a guess and cannot lead to a solid conclusion, otherwise the same could be said regarding stupidity. I mean, you wouldn't want to be wrong about it. Right?

 

I cannot at all agree with your statement, "Do I know that philosophy will benefit me personally, more than religious or political machinations could benefit me? No, it is a guess."

 

Philosophy has very little to do with the conclusions that philosophy is able to produce, it has everything to do with the methodology, i.e. it's the journey not the destination.

It has nothing to do with prediction or educated guesses. So to guess that philosophy will benefit is like saying I guess mathematics will benefit. Mathematics is the methodology to reach conclusions using numbers; philosophy is the methodology to reach conclusions using words. Me, I can say that I know conclusively that philosophy will benefit me personally including anyone else who employs the methodology. There is no grey area between. I will say though, that I guess philosophy will be of more use (benefit) to me than mathematics or music, but the value of those disciplines is quite indisputable through the use of reason and empirical evidence, very unlike religion. The methodology employed in religion has a lot to do with deception, demagoguery and sophism, all kinda mashed together. And just like it is possible to make a mistake in mathematics, it is also possible to err in philosophy, no question.

 

I hope that makes some better sense now. Agree? Disagree? More/other questions? Lemme kno.

 

Regards,

Alex

[Random]

Great! I tried posting, and it didn't get approval for more than 24hrs, I tried a couple more times, I gave up and didn't come back for a few days. Now I see my post repeated three times. Sorry folks.