2006-10-10 08:26:14 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The frustratingly illogical one.
If you are arguing against a solid argument -- you know where you both stand -- and there are some fundamentals that you are both in agreement on and you can both work from.
Now if you are arguing against a frustratingly illogical argumentt, there is no common ground, so your opponent can always reject anything you bring up simply because if he were to agree to it his argumen will disappear.
This can go something like that:
Say I assert Conclusion C is true.
You tell me but consider premise P -- it makes C false. My AUTOMATIC response is to say Well P MUST be false because if P is true then C is false and i KNOW that C is true.
Then you tell me but consider premise P1 -- it surely makes P true. To which i say no P1 MUST be false....
etc
etc
etc
Therefore if you are arguing against something illogical to begin with you cannot use logic to defeat such argument.[1]
I suggest using Ad hominem in such cases.[2] Sure it is not the LOGICALLY valid response, but calling your opponent stupid when you are presented with illogical argument works better then trying to attack illogical things with logic.
2006-10-10 10:11:17 · answer #1 · answered by hq3 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is harder to refute an arguement that is frustratingly illogical because A) there is no structure or logic to counter or argue against, and B) the other person has already made up their mind that they are right and you are wrong so they probably aren't listening anyways.
2006-10-10 15:28:59 · answer #2 · answered by badkitty1969 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The frustratingly illogical one, in my opinion. At least you can discuss a "solid" argument, one that by definition invites disproof. An illogical argument, or circular argument, is a waste of time.
2006-10-10 15:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Greetings!
Holding a PhD.D. in Philosophy, and Western Civilization, I assure you that I, nor any other person with credentials will ever argue and illogical point.
Chaos is not an exact science and therefore, you can't delegate empirical reason to it.
Chaos is that which is illogical, but because imaginable, and because there is no apriore, will in time come to pass.
So a solid argument though harder to refute, musters the basic rules of argument and thus is arguable.
Good Luck
2006-10-10 16:05:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Frustratingly illogical.
2006-10-10 15:40:33 · answer #5 · answered by buttercup 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Frustratingly illogical. There has to be logic in order to refute. Otherwise your refution :-) is illogical too.
2006-10-10 15:29:35 · answer #6 · answered by Spud55 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
how badly has the frustratingly illogical argument got you tied up in knots?
2006-10-10 15:27:42 · answer #7 · answered by kerangoumar 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
take it from someone who has tried very unsuccessully to argue with women: frustratingly illogical wins every single time.
2006-10-10 15:33:45 · answer #8 · answered by Manny 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
a solid argument will at least see that there are at least two ways to see the answer.
2006-10-10 15:35:07 · answer #9 · answered by Mo 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Having a difference in opinion I can handle, it's when the other person seems to be on a completely different planet that bothers me!
2006-10-10 15:34:11 · answer #10 · answered by Sparky5115 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋