I'd like to look at a few select concepts from this chapter.
First, I found the section on fallacious claims of sophistry interesting because sophistry is a major topic in my rhetorical theory class. A major problem with the behavior and style of the sophists was their tendency to resort to circular argumentation to prove their points. I was happy to see circular argumentation appear again in this section because I personally find it to be a fixture of manipulative people. In ancient Greece, the original sophists held personal maxims that often related to the "all" or the infinite. Their arguments about any subject would generally devolve into a claim about the infinite and unknowable. In effect, this was circular argumentation because everything was reduced to the same point or points constantly. Today, I see this with political pundits arguing about the merits of different systems of government and trade. Often, these discussions become nonsensical because the discussion is about theorized pure forms of communism or capitalism, neither of which are very similar to situations encountered in real life. Thus, both sides can argue that one is infinitely better or worse because neither truly exists.
I have always been annoyed by Ben Shapiro's maxim "facts don't care about your feelings" and I think this chapter helped me understand why. Essentially, Shapiro is using an extension of the ad hominem fallacy - saying "your argument is bad because you feel too much." Unfortunately, much like telling an anxious person to calm down, Shapiro's comment disregards the fact that feelings exist the fact that callously treating feelings is a bad way to encourage support or solace. Additionally, it is a fallacy to insinuate that people's feelings are misaligned with facts in the first place. This second point corresponds more closely to the countercharge fallacy. People feel a certain way based on facts they have encountered; Shapiro's statement countercharges by equating these feelings (falsely) with irrational thinking.
First, I found the section on fallacious claims of sophistry interesting because sophistry is a major topic in my rhetorical theory class. A major problem with the behavior and style of the sophists was their tendency to resort to circular argumentation to prove their points. I was happy to see circular argumentation appear again in this section because I personally find it to be a fixture of manipulative people. In ancient Greece, the original sophists held personal maxims that often related to the "all" or the infinite. Their arguments about any subject would generally devolve into a claim about the infinite and unknowable. In effect, this was circular argumentation because everything was reduced to the same point or points constantly. Today, I see this with political pundits arguing about the merits of different systems of government and trade. Often, these discussions become nonsensical because the discussion is about theorized pure forms of communism or capitalism, neither of which are very similar to situations encountered in real life. Thus, both sides can argue that one is infinitely better or worse because neither truly exists.
I have always been annoyed by Ben Shapiro's maxim "facts don't care about your feelings" and I think this chapter helped me understand why. Essentially, Shapiro is using an extension of the ad hominem fallacy - saying "your argument is bad because you feel too much." Unfortunately, much like telling an anxious person to calm down, Shapiro's comment disregards the fact that feelings exist the fact that callously treating feelings is a bad way to encourage support or solace. Additionally, it is a fallacy to insinuate that people's feelings are misaligned with facts in the first place. This second point corresponds more closely to the countercharge fallacy. People feel a certain way based on facts they have encountered; Shapiro's statement countercharges by equating these feelings (falsely) with irrational thinking.
Hey Jorge, I really liked how you brought the Ancient Greece into the conversation. I thought that was really interesting. Also how you then related it to today with politicians. I think that it's kind of important for politicians to talk about the different forms of government because if they didn't then nothing would change or progress. As far as fallacy goes I think that circular argumentation doesn't really apply to fallacy claims. They may have real points but are just repeating themselves because they can't think of something better. I think fallacy claims are often made when someone has no real information or is desperate to make a point or to trick or hurt someone. But I do like how you bring up with Ben Sharipo and how he made a fallacy with his statement. That really bugs me as well.
ReplyDelete