most liked (81)

navigate to the topic list
  • rhetoric (aristotle)

    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.

  • politics of the united states

    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.

  • appeal to ignorance

    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."

  • false cause

    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."

  • straw man

    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."

  • appeal to authority

    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."

  • hasty generalization

    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."

  • false dilemma

    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."

  • slippery slope

    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

    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.

  • russian oligarchs

    oligarchs who stole russia's wealth with putin. as far as i know, they are all men.

  • john stuart mill

    john stuart mill, a 19th century philosopher and political economist, is best known for his work on the concept of liberty, particularly freedom of speech. in his essay on liberty, mill argues that individuals should be free to express their ideas and opinions without fear of censorship or punishment, as long as their speech does not harm others.

    according to mill, the primary reason for protecting freedom of speech is that it allows for the exchange of ideas and the free flow of information. this, in turn, allows people to form their own opinions and make informed decisions. without the ability to freely express and explore different viewpoints, individuals would be unable to challenge and question the status quo, leading to a stagnant and intellectually stagnant society.

    mill also believed that freedom of speech serves as a safeguard against the abuse of power. when people are able to openly criticize and express their opinions about those in positions of power, it helps to hold those individuals accountable and prevent them from becoming tyrannical.

    however, mill recognized that there are limits to freedom of speech. he argued that the harm principle should be applied to speech, meaning that speech should not be restricted unless it causes harm to others. for example, speech that incites violence or causes direct harm to an individual's reputation should be restricted.

    overall, mill's belief in the importance of freedom of speech has had a significant impact on modern ideas about individual liberty and the role of government in regulating speech. his ideas continue to be debated and discussed by philosophers and policymakers today.

  • masochistic epistemology

    masochistic epistemology is a theoretical approach to understanding knowledge and cognition that is based on the idea that individuals seek out and derive pleasure from experiences that challenge or undermine their existing beliefs and understanding of the world. this approach is named after the 19th-century writer leopold von sacher-masoch, who is known for his exploration of the psychological dynamics of submission, domination, and power in human relationships. in masochistic epistemology, the pursuit of knowledge is seen as an inherently masochistic act, in which individuals willingly subject themselves to mental discomfort, uncertainty, and self-doubt in order to gain a deeper or more nuanced understanding of the world around them. this approach emphasizes the importance of actively seeking out and engaging with information and perspectives that challenge one's existing beliefs and assumptions, as a way of testing, refining, and strengthening one's knowledge.

  • racism

    racism is the belief that certain races are superior to others, and that the superior races are entitled to dominate and oppress the inferior ones. racism is often based on the idea that certain physical characteristics, such as skin color or facial features, determine a person's worth and capabilities. racism can manifest itself in many ways, including discrimination, prejudice, violence, and oppression. it is a pervasive problem that has been present throughout history and continues to affect people around the world today.

    while the actions and behaviors associated with racism can be harmful and destructive, they do not necessarily indicate a mental health condition. racism is a complex social and cultural issue that is rooted in historical and systemic inequalities and power imbalances. it is important to address and combat racism through education, awareness, and social and political action.

  • tilting at windmills

    tilting at windmills refers to the act of fighting against imaginary or illusory problems or adversaries, or of engaging in futile or quixotic endeavors. the phrase comes from the novel don quixote, in which the main character, don quixote, is depicted as tilting at windmills, which he believes to be giants, in a series of futile and quixotic attempts to right wrongs and defend the honor of his lady love.

    here is an example of tilting at windmills:

    imagine that you are trying to solve a problem, but you are approaching it in the wrong way or using the wrong tools. you might be tilting at windmills if you persist in trying to solve the problem despite the fact that your efforts are not making any progress or are unlikely to succeed.

    another example of tilting at windmills might be someone who is trying to fight against an imaginary or illusory problem or adversary. for example, someone might be tilting at windmills if they are trying to fight against a problem that does not really exist, or if they are trying to fight against an adversary that is not really a threat.

    in order to avoid tilting at windmills, it is important to be aware of the limitations and realities of the problems or challenges that you are facing, and to use appropriate and effective strategies and tools to address them. this can help to ensure that your efforts are focused and productive, rather than being wasted on futile or quixotic endeavors.

/ 6 »