/lit/ - Literature

>>6382212
>impying you need truth to live

bullshit is hella fun

>>6327613
>The people who talk in a logical rational way, without hiding behind ad hominems and various slang.
There is no such thing. Everyone equally bullshits, some people just realise they do and others thinks they're wearing the magic hat of objectivity, logic and rationality.

>>6106749
>tfw you have overcome the childish need for truth
>tfw post-right/wrong dichotomy

>>6110208
>thinking truth has inherent value

>tfw thought already was where we are now with the sophists
>tfw socrates and his moralfag gang made us take a 2500 year detour

I see why they call him the corrupter. Filthy decadent.

>>6016774
That's why the sophists were so great before the moralist philosophers fucked everything up. The sophists already came to terms with conclusions people are still struggling with today.

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted." is really the most profound aphorism of all.

>>5976545
The sophists were right all along and after a few thousand years we're pretty much back where they were before the moralfag gang fucked it all up and took a detour.

>>4875283
We realised that it's bullshit and moved on.

>>4799696
>moral scepticism wasn't really prevalent until the World Wars.

scuse me?

>>4769518
Lel better write a fanfiction where I debate your husbando and lose, 'broad' one.

>>4314987
>tfw bullshit=brilliance

>>4297708
Sophists deceive others, philosophers deceive themselves.

>>4245996
Knowledge is nice but sophism is nicer. Learn to argue and to be right. Even the most glorious expert won't outsmart a proper rhetorician.

>>4198344
It is. Only people who don't care much about logic can use logic. The ones who take it seriously have to dismiss it.

>>4076626
>mfw good rhetoric is better than good argumentation and people can't deal with it

>>3732264
Sources on the Cynics:

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/cynics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/cynics/
http://www.mediafire.com/?zp2ppnxjwj28c

Arranged in order of complexity. The latter contains academic works on Cynicism, to my knowledge most important works written about the subject. As far as Sophism goes I can recommend http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/sophists of course as an introduction and other than that of course wiki/iep/stanford, but actual work on the Sophists I wouldn't know. You'd probably want to read Plato's dialogues involving them at some point.

Good luck!

>>3442061
There is no reason to prefer logical thought to illogical thought. Your only reason to prefer logical thought to illogical thought is because logical thought is logical. And circular reasoning isn't a sound logical argument. The preference for logic can't be logically defended. Your preference for logical is therefore illogical. It's based merely on the irrational faith that logic is superior to the lack of logic. Your position is no more logical than that of a religious person. So now you have two options. Either you accept that logic is superior which would imply that you accept that my argument is valid and that logic is in fact not superior, or you just save yourself the time and admit that logic isn't superior.

Boom. You just got sophisted.

>>3410525
Your presentation isn't up to standards. That is all. With proper style you can get away with anything.

>>3253457
I tire of discussion and debate more quickly in real life because I'm held accountable as a person and therefore feel more obliged to voice the most sensible view, which is extreme scepticism, since I can't allow myself to be associated with a less sternly rational position. Since you can't beat scepticism in debate, most discussions last only a few minutes after which we get back to talking about things in life instead of life as a whole. I do sometimes take positions for fun (such as antinatalism) while I'm secretly apathetic. I'm too much a self-aware sophist and sceptic to enjoy sincere discussion anymore, I think, since it never leads anywhere and the game itself isn't stimulating enough.

On /lit/ there is anonimity so often I take on roles and play the Nietzschean in one thread, the utilitarian in another and the Christian mystic in yet another. This is more entertaining.

>>3164631
Learn to narcissism. She knows more about science than you? Science is useless, radical scepticism is the only honest position. She knows more languages? Dumb bitch hasn't realised yet that it's all futile because true communication is impossible anyway. She dresses better than you? Lol, superficial girl is too shallow to ever feel the moral law in her heart. She dresses worse? Lel, people don't realise that ethics are nonsense and that our only refuge is the world of aesthetics in order to live our lives as works of art.

Anything can be refuted or put down. Anything can be glorified. Sophism reigns supreme.

>>2946492
I think it's mostly practice. And the traps can be fairly simplistic if your going with the approval of onlookers instead of the opponent. Just make him go against commonsensical views or general intuitive morality and he looks like a dick. What I like the most is making him accidentally take position against people present ("well jake has an X also, do you think he is a bad person?") in an indignant manner. It's delicious. What is also great is the flat out enormous bluff when you know you can get away with it (mention a scientific experiment you read about in April's edition of Harper's coming to conclusions that support your argument even though you made up both the experiment and the article) when among the right people.

>>2813021
Practice your sophism and learn to talk your way out of situations you were wrong. That's how we all do it.

>>2603213
>Reasons can be rational. They are weighed against motives and reasons countering your preference, even disposition at the time of decision. Intellectually sound reasons involve some leg work beyond your face-value requirements.
The /reasoning/ may be sound, as in logically correct, but you still base everything of irrational preferences. It's nothing more than elaborate justification along certain rules. You can build great arguments around why you like cats more than dogs, but it still remains just as arbitrary as saying "lol i just like 'em". Preference can't be justified, therefore it can't be dismissed either.

>Aesthetic reasons (colour preference) are extremely different from moral reasons (discriminating against another based on race or religion)
Why would that be? They both come down to whimsical preference.

>Again, reasoned conclusions are very much beyond immediate emotive reactions to ideas. Confusing aesthetic justification with moral shows the flaw in your logic.
I'd say the burden of proof is yours, since you seem to discriminate between moral and aesthetic choices without giving any reason to do so. One could even say you just simply prefer that to be so but can't justify it.

>Premise 1:
>I intuitively dislike Jews
>Premise 2:
>My intellectual reasons are solely intuitive
>Conclusion:
>Disliking Jews is intellectually sound.

I said /all/ preferences are neither intellectually sound nor unsound. The question then is, is having preferences compatible with being an otherwise rationally capable being. The answer would be either yes, or that the whole of humanity is incapable of rational thought.

You are a poor sophist. You should have used a more serene colour to go along with that statement, it would have felt more profound. This jarring bright green inspires revolt against your statement.