[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 36 KB, 793x860, 1626468186141.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.19096319 [Reply] [Original]

A better thinker and more articulate

>> No.19096333

No.

>> No.19096346

Yes

>> No.19096360

>>19096319
Maybe

>> No.19096367

I don't know

>> No.19096369

i think reading anything will make you better at arguments

>> No.19096373

>>19096367
can you repeat the question?
>>19096369
fuck you for fucking this up

>> No.19096374
File: 30 KB, 810x362, b11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION??

>> No.19096401
File: 212 KB, 800x480, 1595856866877.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19096333
>>19096346
>>19096360
>>19096367
>>19096373
>>19096374

>> No.19096405

>>19096319
You will create better arguments, but people won't understand them anyway, so to answer your real question: no, you won't become someone who is good a winning debates. The very concept of winning debates is a neckbeard fantasy and makes no sense in real life. You become better at convincing people by learning how not to trigger a pride-based reaction, not by crafting perfect arguments.

>> No.19096409

>>19096401
I should go to Reddit just for saying no?

>> No.19096412

>>19096409
yes

>> No.19096423

>>19096412
By

>> No.19096620

>>19096409
no

>> No.19096624

>>19096409
maybe

>> No.19096627

>>19096409
Maybe

>> No.19096633

>>19096412
>>19096620
>>19096624
>>19096627
cringe

>> No.19096865

>>19096319
those are all different things.
Philosophy won't make you more articulate, that's something that can only be achieved by getting feedback on your speaking and writing. You're more likley to become more articulate by shitposting here or on twitter than by reading.
Will it make you better at arguments? It can if you don't read passively and try and think about how a philosopher structures their arguments and maybe look for patterns or analogies in strong and weak arguments.
It certainly might give you a guide.
Now, will it make you a better thinker. I don't even know what that means? How would you qualify someone as being a "good thinker" as opposed to a "average" or even a lousy thinker?
Is it about their ability to bend reality to their will through problem solving? Is it about equanimity of mind? Or is it about pure persuasion?