Shifting from the taxonomy of animals to the taxonomy of logical errors
What would explain why some person finds some piece of false reasoning persuasive? The victim of the sophism must hold some additional false belief, either about language or about the world, which makes the false reasoning appear cogent to him.
So the victim needs to already be confused about something, and then that confusion is pushed further. A recent example of this I used was the exploitation of the scientific mindset to promote amoralism.
Let’s not talk so concretely though- there are potentially structures of false reasoning that can be applied outside of our specific time and place. For Aristotle there are specifically twelve means of sophistry. What this means is that there are twelve distinct ways something can SEEM persuasive and even BE persuasive while in reality being false.
It is a sinister craft when you phrase it like this
the sophist trades on people’s inability to distinguish the true from the false
So, they tend to be smarter than average. It’s a type of predatoriness on the stupid. Or, one middling caste preys on an even lesser caste. Classically speaking, it WAS thought of as a form of “hunting”. Hunting for souls that cannot distinguish the truth from the false.
I understand that people like “charts” so-
The reason you should care about this is because you’re probably a victim of it.
Or are you the hunter or the hunted?
I’m probably talking to many people of above average intelligence who convinced someone of falsehood even on this very day. That’s just who many people ARE. And they don’t have any guilt for what they do. I’m not sure if a jew is capable of doing anything ELSE. That’s just the definition of what they are, they don’t have any control of it.
There’s something approaching a science to this
the perplexity as to why the apparent refutation is false and why it appears true
3000 years of convincing each other to believe nonsense has left them quite talented at this. The truth is they’re all each other’s victims. One way to explain jewish soullessness is that their souls were “hunted out” by fellow jews long ago.
It already is too late, really. It already is over. Most of the viable goys have already been hunted out of existence. There are ways to understand it, and what else to do in a post-apocalypse?
Among Aristotle’s requirements for recognizing false argumentation are commitments to a number of ontological positions. Logic, as a general study of reasoning, is not metaphysically neutral for Aristotle. He holds that there are substantive claims about the world that must be accepted if one is to be able to distinguish between examples of true and false reasoning.
People who believe in Enlightenment dogmas (which are a type of ontological position) can be easily led into destruction by playing on an already-existing confusion and exacerbating it. One could say the goyim were “ripe” for destruction.
Maybe in another timeline that confusion could’ve been ameliorated. But since it’s pushed so far these days it renders them virtually unable to be reasoned with.
Logic is probably the most boring subject ever for people. I don’t know what to tell you, it’s a hidden treasure. Don’t you want to be cursed to see falsity everywhere? Then learn logic! As much as it does suck it’s better than being one of the sophists. Besides all this, the logic is usually considered as the place to start with Aristotle’s system. It’s the basics of reasoning, the building-blocks- every other treatise presupposes the ability to reason.
“You’ve only been convincing me that he SHOULD be removed from the curriculum.”
What I really wanted to write about today was more about female intelligence. That’s just too much of a nightmare for people. Do you prefer a nightmare or the dullness of logic?