[MD] Annotations to LC

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ron,

okay, so now you want me to make you secure further premises for your 
argument that dialectic is a form of rhetoric. According to the Socratic 
method I should now proceed to secure your agreement to further 
premises. The premise I propose you to agree to is:

"It is irrelevant whether dialectic is a form of rhetoric, because when 
I accuse an argument of being rhetorical I mean some other form of 
rhetoric than dialectic."

I don't have a peer group because Bo didn't give me Pirsig's e-mail 
address! :D (I don't know what else to do than to joke about this. I 
don't like not having a peer group. Some people teach me things and 
skills but your teacher isn't your peer. And although I'd like to teach 
people seem to find me preach.)

Your further thesis is that all explanation is an argument from the 
particular to the universal. Do you mean that you find all explanations 
to be inductive? And do you find the previous question to approach your 
argument deductively, ie. from the universal to the particular?

Regards,

Tuk



On 17-Nov-16 2:53, X Acto wrote:
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 6:49 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> I get it, you're using the Socratic method when you claim rhetoric is dialectic. But I'm also using the Socratic method when I convince you rhetoric and dialectic are different things. So what about the Socratic method?
>>
> Tuukka,
> I'm using Socratic method to maintain dialectic is a type of rhetoric. Which it is.
> Ask your peer group.
>   All explanation is an argument from the particular to the universal.
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus