when you break it all down and analyze it to death, can you twist a word to fit your meaning? it's like doing a crossword puzzle, you have your answer and so you try to find a word that fits. sometimes the word is a stretch or used in a context unfamiliar to you but there is a word that fits.
"the lie"
you can make a wrong answer sound right if you make it sound convincing. the world is filled with people who will mislead you in their favor. their theories may sound legit but how much has been twisted to make that theory sound true?
while researching the different topics we've discussed, i've learned how far a word can stretch and how convincing something can appear when it's based on no actuality.
1 comment:
Certainly one of the major concerns of logic is to examine arguments which appear to be sound but which are indeed fallacious. Often arguments can be very persuasive, but are devoid of real merit. The laws governing clarity of argumentation are not entirely fluid, but are difficult to apply in many "real life" situations.
One of the great difficulties I face as a college instructor is finding a way to PREVENT students from being entranced by my "authority" while sufficiently asserting my authority to legitimately conduct a course week after week.
Simple logical presentation of the material at the core of this course is possible, and could be convincing, but to do this without "leading down the primrose path is exceedingly difficult.
I am quite certain that at times it seems as though I am withholding information unfairly, or needlessly, or that I am prejudicially advocating an untenable system, or that I am proposing something which is indefensible, or not worth elaborating.
Consider, here, that if one is "breaking "it" all down" (whatever "it" is) and "analyze it to death", very likely, yes, one is twisting words. But if one analyzes for a specific purpose, and analyzes to the degree of fineness necessary (necessity determined by the degree of understanding of the subject at the moment of one's study), then one should not be engaged in any "twisting", but merely in a fuller or clearer or more limited understanding of the term. This should not entail a lie, but rather the opposite: it should reveal a truth.
If one employs a theoretical definition, one must be able to defend the theory which underlies the term, and show why the term is defined in the theoretical way one does, and one must also be willing to abandon the definition if it proves untenable.
Post a Comment