Marsha said:
Does that second premise hold?
1. Marsha posts the quote "Kill all intellectual patterns."
2. "Kill all intellectual patterns." is an anti-intellectual statement.
3. Therefore, Marsha is an anti-intellectual.
The basic structure of an argument is
A = BB = CTherefore, A = C
Where the premises can be checked, and it can be seen that the conclusion,
indeed, follows from the premises.
dmb says:
The second premise is false (and the first premise isn't really a premise).
If you're trying to formulate something like my argument, the first and second
premise should be combined.
1. Marsha mistakenly posts the quote, "kill all intellectual patterns," AS IF
it were an anti-intellectual statement.
2. The quote, taken in context, is not an anti-intellectual statement but
rather a statement about the perfection and mastery of intellectual static
quality for the purpose of raising rationality to art form.
3. Marsha has misunderstood the quote and thereby come to a bogus,
anti-intellect conclusion.
But of course syllogistic logic is a very ancient and very simple form. It's an
indifferent, trivial little machine that does no real work. Garbage in, garbage
out.
And I'd bet big bucks that logic has nothing to do with it because, for you,
anti-intellectualism is always your premise AND your conclusion. There is no
thinking or reading or interpreting involved in reaching your position. It's
just an attitude for which you invent a whole series of incoherent
rationalizations. You have no actual arguments.
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
