Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00044)

Hello Paul,

You are right about the window breaking affect, as I've seen people 
gang up on someone after they see an opening from one post. I 
certainly will try not to be the person who accidently starts them. 

My objective was to simply point out Sophistry in our own thinking, 
which I'm not above in any way neither. 

> > So let's see if we can just watch the debates in an impartial way
> and may the best man win.
> > 
> but doesn't the very notion of a "best man winning" imply 
partiality?

Yes, but it is a partiality for whatever is best to be the result and 
not for a particular candidate. 


> I guess I fail to grasp your use of "sophistry" here. 

I'm using Sophistry in terms of the way it was used by the ancient 
greeks. It was not a derogatory term, but was used like we use Wise 
man today. They were experts in the art of rhetoric and believed that 
through rhetoric, you can prove anything. Therefore they were hired 
by the politicians to convince the populus of their political 
platforms. 

Socrates was trying to move from rhetoric to analysis. And showed the 
difference. Rhetoric proves what one wants to prove. Analysis is 
indifferent to the result. While the Sophists saw everything from 
science to religion as only means to political agendas, Socrates 
argued wisdom for truth's sake. This made Socrates a threat to 
important political figures and therefore he was forced to take 
hemlock and die. But his movement has lived on.

Unfortunately, so has the movement of Sophistry.



> 
> Pedro and I both appear to share the same orientation toward Bush 
and
> Kerry in terms of valence and salience. Perhaps you do as well. 
But
> sophistry only comes into the picture when our thought processes are
> so dominated by feeling that we can't face unwelcome truths.

Not all sophistry is based on emotions. There is also sophistry that 
is based on beliefs, convictions, axioms, and expectations. If you 
want something to be true, you can certainly prove to yourself that 
it is true. 

Many and
> perhaps most people are that way about political figures. But I 
don't
> see how wishing one well in a debate is proof that one's thought
> processes are distorted and subservient to emotion. 

In a debate, there is a difference in wishing one person well and 
wishing for the best. I try not to let my political leanings get in 
the way of listening to a debate. And IMO that should go for all 
debates or in comparing any two sets of ideas. 


> 
> Perhaps you could elaborate?


Sophistry has a bias. It has a cause. It has always gone hand in hand 
with politics. 

Analysis is indifferent to the results. It's only motive is to persue 
the truth whever it may fall. It is the method that the Budhha talks 
about when he tells us to be detached and dispassionate and Krishna 
when he tells us to not desire the fruits of one's action. It's the 
persuit of Truth for Truth's sake. 


I hope I've made things clearer. 

Koshek