[MD] The hard question.

[X Acto]

________________________________



Marsha said to dmb:
To make myself clear, I am not interested in a debate concerning the linguistic analysis of words, definitions and meaning so much as being interested in probing 'the way things are'.  The MoQ, after all, is a metaphysics, a theory concerning reality, not an aspect of linguistic philosophy. ...



dmb says:
The complaints are not about linguistic philosophy. The criticism is, quite simply, that your words and ideas are contradictory and incoherent. The problem, which you never address and do not seem to grasp regardless of how carefully it's explained, is that your statements are nonsense. The issue is that you've confused and conflated the MOQ's core concepts. Unless and until you address the substance of this often-repeated criticism, I'll remain convinced that you don't know what you're talking about.

But we both know that'll never happen. You'll just play some weasel game again, as usual. I could set my watch by it. 

                        
Ron:
Interesting to note how this discussion is progressing as relating to an old philosophical question.
The question of the "better" use of rhetoric. 

 There is the style of the Sophist one who reportedly argues very much like Marsha argues,
frequently employing what is now reffered to as the "red Herring" or the  "Chewbacca defense" .
Ignoratio elenchi. 

Then the style of the philosopher. Much like Daves style who employ more of a Pragmatic approach
that in broad general sense states that all fallacy is a form of Ignoratio elenchi. 

Which seems like an odd charge against the Sophist who rests apon elanchus as supporting
their notion of the true as being ta endoxa (opinion). But I guess what is being leveled at the Sophist
is that they come at this conclusion without any refutation while the Philosopher asks what are our
opinions is based in? What are our reasons for our beliefs? 

 

..