aras diler

aunt sally is a term that refers to a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy that involves presenting a distorted or misrepresented version of an opposing argument in order to make it easier to attack or refute. the term "aunt sally" comes from a traditional british fairground game in which players throw sticks or balls at a wooden figure, typically depicting a woman, in order to knock it down.

in the context of debating or arguing, the "aunt sally" is the simplified, distorted version of an opposing argument that is presented by one party in order to make it easier to attack or refute. this can be done in order to create the impression that the opposing argument is weaker or less valid than it actually is, or to mislead or deceive the audience by presenting a distorted version of the opposing argument.

for example, imagine that you are arguing with someone about the benefits of a vegetarian diet. they might present an "aunt sally" version of your argument by claiming that you believe that all meat is unhealthy and that everyone should become a vegetarian, which is a distortion of your actual argument. they might then attack this distorted version of your argument, saying that it is unrealistic or impractical, without addressing the actual points that you are making.

in order to avoid committing the straw man fallacy, it is important to accurately represent the opposing argument and to engage with it on its own terms, rather than attacking a simplified or distorted version of it. this can help to ensure that the argument is fair and based on accurate information, rather than relying on misrepresentations or distortions of the opposing viewpoint.

steelmanning is a critical thinking technique that involves trying to understand and present the strongest possible version of an argument or position, even if it is one that you disagree with or find flawed. the goal of steelmanning is not to defend or advocate for the argument, but rather to understand it more deeply and to better understand why someone might hold that position. this can be useful in a variety of contexts, such as when you are trying to have a productive conversation or debate with someone who holds a different perspective, when you are trying to anticipate objections to your own argument, or when you are trying to identify the underlying assumptions or values that inform someone's argument.

here are a few examples of how steelmanning might be applied in different contexts:

imagine that you are trying to have a conversation with a friend about the value of wearing masks to prevent the spread of covid-19. your friend argues that masks are unnecessary because they don't provide complete protection and can make it harder to breathe. to steelman their argument, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe masks are unnecessary?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that masks don't provide enough protection?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of your friend's argument, rather than simply dismissing it as misguided or wrong.
suppose that you are writing an essay in which you argue that the government should invest more in renewable energy sources. one of the objections to your argument might be that renewable energy is too expensive and that it is not feasible to rely on it as our primary source of energy. to steelman this objection, you might try to understand the underlying assumptions and values that inform it. for example, you might ask yourself: "what do people who believe that renewable energy is too expensive think are the main costs associated with it?" "what do they see as the main benefits of non-renewable energy sources, and how do they weigh those benefits against the costs?" by answering these questions, you can better understand the perspective of those who disagree with you and anticipate their objections more effectively.

imagine that you are trying to have a productive conversation with someone who holds a very different political perspective from your own. one way to approach this conversation might be to try to steelman the other person's arguments. for example, if they argue that the government should not provide social services because it is not the government's role to take care of people, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe that the government should not provide social services?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that it is not the government's role to take care of people?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of the other person's argument and to identify any common ground you might have, rather than simply dismissing their perspective as misguided or wrong.

this is an argument that asserts that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. for example, "there is no evidence that aliens don't exist, so they must exist."

this is an argument that suggests that one event is the cause of another event, without sufficient evidence to support the claim. for example, "i wore my lucky socks and won the game, so the socks must have brought me luck."

this is an argument that misrepresents an opponent's position in order to make it easier to attack. for example, "those who support gun control want to take away all guns, including hunting rifles and shotguns."

this is an argument that relies on the credibility or expertise of a person or organization to support a claim, without providing any evidence to back it up. for example, "the ceo of a major pharmaceutical company says that their new drug is completely safe, so it must be true."

this is an argument that is based on insufficient evidence, resulting in a conclusion that is not supported by the available information. for example, "i met one rude person from france, so all french people must be rude."

this is an argument that presents two options as the only possibilities, when in reality there may be more options available. for example, "you either support the war or you're unpatriotic."

the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument suggests that a small initial action or event will inevitably lead to a chain of other events, culminating in a significant, negative consequence. this type of argument suggests that if the initial action is allowed to happen, it will set off a chain reaction that cannot be stopped, ultimately leading to an undesirable outcome.

for example, consider the following argument:

"if we allow students to use their phones in class, it will lead to students being constantly distracted and unable to pay attention. this will result in lower grades and a decrease in overall academic performance. therefore, we should not allow students to use their phones in class."

in this argument, the initial action of allowing students to use their phones in class is presented as the first step in a chain of events that will ultimately lead to negative consequences. however, this argument does not take into account the possibility that students might be able to use their phones responsibly or that other measures could be put in place to prevent distractions.

one key problem with the slippery slope fallacy is that it often relies on exaggerated or unrealistic assumptions about the consequences of an action. it is important to carefully evaluate the evidence and consider alternative explanations when confronted with this type of argument.

in critical thinking, it is important to be aware of the slippery slope fallacy and to carefully consider the evidence and logic behind an argument, rather than simply accepting it because it seems to follow a logical sequence of events. it is also important to consider alternative explanations and to be open to the possibility that the initial action or event may not necessarily lead to the negative consequences that are being predicted.

ad hominem is a type of argument where someone attacks or criticizes the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself. this is often done in an attempt to undermine the person's credibility or character, rather than focusing on the merits of their argument.

here are some examples of ad hominem:

"you can't trust what he says about politics because he's a convicted criminal."
"she can't be right about the environment because she works for a big oil company."
"he's just saying that because he's trying to be popular."
in each of these examples, the person making the argument is attacked or criticized, rather than the argument itself being discussed. this can be a logical fallacy because it doesn't address the substance of the argument and can be used to distract from a discussion of the issue at hand.

aristotle's rhetoric is a theory of communication that was developed by the ancient greek philosopher aristotle. it is based on the idea that effective communication requires understanding the audience, the speaker's goals, and the context in which the communication takes place.

there are three main elements of aristotle's rhetoric:

ethos: this refers to the credibility or character of the speaker. a speaker with a strong ethos is more likely to be trusted and believed by the audience.
pathos: this refers to the emotional appeal of the argument. a speaker who can appeal to the emotions of the audience is more likely to persuade them.
logos: this refers to the logical appeal of the argument. a speaker who presents a well-reasoned, logical argument is more likely to persuade the audience.

to win an argument using aristotle's rhetoric, it is important to consider these elements and try to establish your own credibility, appeal to the emotions of the audience, and present a logical argument.

here are some examples of how to use aristotle's rhetoric to win an argument:

– establish your credibility: if you are an expert on the topic you are discussing, make sure to highlight your qualifications and experience. this will help to build your ethos and make your argument more persuasive.
– appeal to emotions: try to connect with your audience on an emotional level. this could involve sharing personal stories or using anecdotes to illustrate your point.
–use logic: make sure to present a well-reasoned, logical argument. use evidence to support your points and address any counterarguments.

by considering these elements of aristotle's rhetoric, you can craft a persuasive argument that is more likely to be effective in winning over your audience.

catharsis (meaning "purification" or "cleansing" or "clarification") is the purification and purgation of emotions through dramatic art, or it may be any extreme emotional state that results in renewal and restoration. in its literal medical sense, it refers to the evacuation of the catamenia—the menstrual fluid or other reproductive material from the patient. but as a metaphor it was originally used by aristotle in the poetics, comparing the effects of tragedy on the mind of a spectator to the effect of catharsis on the body.

in psychology, the term is associated with freudian psychoanalysis and specifically relates to the expression of buried trauma, bringing it into consciousness and thereby releasing it permanently. however, there is considerable debate as to its therapeutic usefulness. social catharsis may be regarded as the collective expression of extreme emotion, when groups gather together, such as in large crowds at sporting events.

catharsis in platonism

in platonism, catharsis is part of the soul's progressive ascent to knowledge. it is a means to go beyond the senses and embrace the pure world of the intelligible. specifically for the neoplatonists plotinus and porphyry, catharsis is the elimination of passions. this leads to a clear distinction in the virtues. in the second tractate of the first ennead, plotinus lays out the difference between the civic virtues and the cathartic virtues and explains that the civic, or political, virtues are inferior. they are a principle of order and beauty and concern material existence. although they maintain a trace of the absolute good, they do not lead to the unification of the soul with the divinity. as porphyry makes clear, their function is to moderate individual passions and allow for peaceful coexistence with others. the purificatory, or cathartic, virtues are a condition for assimilation to the divinity. they separate the soul from the sensible, from everything that is not its true self, enabling it to contemplate the mind.

there are three branches - executive (president), legislative (senate and house), and judicial (supreme court).

the house has 435 districts, and you vote for one representative for your district. each state gets the number of districts based on its population compared to the country as a whole - some states only have one, and california has the most - around 50. representatives get 2-year terms.

the senate every state gets exactly 2 senators, for 100 total. population doesn't matter. senators get 6-year terms, and each state's senators are elected in different years.

when you vote for the presidency, each state has "electoral votes" equal to the total number of representatives and senators that state has. whoever gets the most votes in your state wins all of the state's electoral votes, and whoever gets the most electoral votes becomes the president. the president gets a 4-year term, and the maximum is two terms.

laws are passed as follows: the house has to pass it, then it goes to the senate. if the senate passes it, it goes to the president. if the senate doesn't pass it, it goes back to the house for changes, until there is something both houses pass.

the senate has an unusual rule called the filibuster, where one or more senators who want to block a bill being discussed can just keep talking and talking and not stop to allow a vote on the bill - it takes 60% of the senate to vote to stop a filibuster. so if you have 41% of the senate opposed to a bill, you can effectively block it - this gives the minority party a lot more power than it would normally have.

once the president gets a bill that has been approved by the house and senate, he can sign it, and it becomes law, or he can veto it, which means that it goes back to the house and senate and it fails unless they both pass it by a 2/3 vote (called "overriding a veto").

even if the house, senate, and president agree to pass a law, the supreme court can strike the law down if the law violates the constitution.

never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
napoleon bonaparte

rabbi abraham twerski talks about the difference between selfish love and true love, which must be a love of giving and not of receiving.

transcript:

"'young man. why are you eating that fish?' the young mans says, 'because i love fish.' he says, 'oh. you love the fish. that's why you took it out of the water and killed it and boiled it.' he says, 'don't tell me you love the fish. you love yourself, and because the fish tastes good to you; therefore, you took it out of the water and killed it and boiled it.'

"so much of what is love is fish love. young couple falls in love. young man and young woman fall in love. what does that mean? that means that he saw in this woman someone who he felt could provide him with all of his physical and emotional needs, and she felt in this man somebody she feels that she can write, that was love, but each one is looking out for their own needs. it's not love for the other. the other person becomes a vehicle for my gratification.

"too much of what is called love is fish love. an external love is not on what i'm going to get but i'm going to give. we had an ethicist rabbi dessler, who said, 'people make a serious mistake in thinking that you give to those whom you love, and the real answer is you love those to whom you give.'

his point is if i give something to you, i've invested myself in you. since self-love is a given, everybody loves themselves, now that part of me has become in you, there's part of me in you that i love. true love is a love of giving, not a love of receiving.'