Logical Argument Arena (Simple)

Post Reply New Topic

Logical Argument Arena (Simple):

Format:
-Premise 1.
-Premise 2.
-Conclusion.

Context:
-Both formal and humours content.

P1. There are laws which restrict freedom of speech here in Australia.
P2. Political correctness can be used to silence free expression.
Conclusion: Political correctness is Anti-intellectualism.

P1: Homer Simpson engages in metacognition.
P2: Metacognition is an intellectual pursuit.
Conclusion: Homer Simpson is an intellectual.

Context: Australia.

P1: Green's policy inhibits bush back-burning.
P2. Green's policy is anti-fire-trails.
Conclusion: Green's policies are directly responsible for the severity of bushfires.

P1: Rationalism is not incompatible with compassion.
P2: Emotionalism is incompatible with rationalism.
Ergo,
C: Compassion through rationalism has greater integrity.

Not everything can be broken down into syllogisms.

P1: Assertiveness is standing up for one's principles.
P2: Assertiveness does not bend to emotional blackmail.
Ergo,
C: Assertiveness does *not* require the respect of the other person's point of view.

But it would be nice, in at least some cases....

I’m not seeing how you could logically arrive at C. P1 would have to be something like: compassion only comes about through rationalism (which is silly).

How can one measure the “integrity” of compassion and make a value judgment based on the route to compassion?

The ability to have compassion is the important thing.

Syllogisms sometimes have fatal flaws.

If we didn't advance beyond St Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, all the intellectuals would have remained in their cloisters.

Syllogisms were the Scholastics' stock in trade.

A few weeks ago I read some of his “proofs” regarding the existence of God. Silly now but intelligent for the time period. Context is everything.

That’s my problem! I was born in the wrong century. I should’ve been born in the Middle Ages.

Maybe not. I probably would’ve been burned as a witch...

Who said it can be?
That was not my intent.

This thread is a tool of intellectual development.
It allows the clarification of thought.
It requires an in-depth analysis of the concept one is trying to capture.
It is *not* a question of right and wrong.
It does not try to refine the "truth" into its most reductive state.

It is meant to be the sorting out of personal priorities for me.
I had no expectation of any other person's involvement.
And so far, my expectation has been realised.

BTW,
My inclusion of the bracketed word "simple" in the thread title was added to indicate the possible creation of a more complex intellectual exercise involving a greater number of premises (contexts, and qualifiers).
One must learn to walk before one can run,
Mustn't one?

Update:
My expectation seems to have been nullified.

Why create a thread if you don’t expect others to respond?

You need to get the simple things correct before you can add more complexities without problems.

I don't see anything wrong with making use of syllogisms in simple logic exercises.

I do see something wrong with relying on them in making major decisions.

I didn't mean to ruin your fun (I mean that).

I understood the limitation of the "syllogisms" format from the beginning, hence the "(simple)" in the thread's title.
I understood the "issues" regarding the use of terms such as "integrity", and the need for further clarification.

As I said to Korie,
I wasn't expecting anyone else's contributions.
The thread was created more as a learning tool.

Commentary is welcome.
Other people's "syllogisms" even more so.

Perhaps you want to make your own syllogisms?

BTW,
The context did include the possibility of humorous content,
Or should I say "Homer-ous" content?