Question

...
Mchasewalker

A Litany of Fallacies

This oozed over the transom this morning and I had a difficult time pinpointing just how many it touched on, so I thought I would open it up to the cognoscenti to see what you all thought.

" Aristotle invented intellectualism the method of abstracting a fragment of reality and treating that fragment as reality itself. So our language is abstract generalizations. Take the word cow it can stand for any cow in any breed worldwide, billions of cows, and even stand for other animals such as sea cows.

Intellectualism is then a generalizing, abstract unreal way of thinking, so it should not be surprising to any that real beings such as spiritual beings are not understood by such surface thinking."

Go!

 

asked on Monday, Oct 04, 2021 04:44:02 PM by Mchasewalker

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
0
Kaiden writes:

What is this quote’s source? 

posted on Thursday, Oct 07, 2021 11:57:30 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

I'm guessing this is the part you think contains fallacies...

" Aristotle invented intellectualism the method of abstracting a fragment of reality and treating that fragment as reality itself. So our language is abstract generalizations. Take the word cow it can stand for any cow in any breed worldwide, billions of cows, and even stand for other animals such as sea cows.

Intellectualism is then a generalizing, abstract unreal way of thinking, so it should not be surprising to any that real beings such as spiritual beings are not understood by such surface thinking."

...but it seems more like pretentious waffle built on questionable premises, making it difficult to parse.

But I'll try.

For instance, the 'cow' example is a meaningless point, since 'cow' is merely a category in which the various breeds are placed. It is not trying to take a generic cow (think black and white ones you see on farms) and 'generalise' that as being representative of all cows, for example. The person is trying to say that 'intellectualism' is a failure because it overgeneralises but the example doesn't prove their point.

They then use this poor example to claim that spiritual beings cannot be understood by intellectualism, which doesn't follow.

The reason I've put logical fallacy (possible) is because this might be an attempt to make an unfalsifiable claim. If the person can deny 'intellectualism' (or reasoning) as a method of reaching truth, they can prevent their claims of the existence of 'spiritual beings' from being proven false...allowing them to maintain the claim even in the face of a lack of evidence.

answered on Monday, Oct 04, 2021 06:33:45 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Kostas Oikonomou
0
  1. The problematic part is the last paragraph. Specifically where it says "unreal way of thinking". This is unsupported, yet the author uses the word "then" previously ("Intellectuallism is then..." as if the first paragraph supports the claim of "unreal thinking".  Therefore since the conclusion does not follow from the premises I think it qualifies as non sequitur .
  2. The "unreal" is also ambiguous. What is an "unreal way of thinking"? Later that way of thinking is also characterized as "surface thinking" - another ambiguous term. So I guess it could qualify as ambiguity fallacy  .
  3. Lastly "it should not be surprising to any" that's alleged certainty to make the unsupported claim "real beings such as spiritual beings" appear certain. A sneaky attempt to hypnotize us into accepting that spiritual beings are real.

    Indeed a litany of fallacies!
answered on Tuesday, Oct 05, 2021 08:51:18 AM by Kostas Oikonomou

Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories

Comments