All great arguments are just rhetorical tricks trying to persuade you. Prove me wrong.
>>25628784>duh rhetoric is just persuasionVery good, anon. Now, what is two plus one?
>>25628784aristotle was a cryptosophist
>>25628787Very good anon. Now how are two, plus, and one defined? What are their genus? Can you continue the process indefinitely? No, you run into primary notions and axioms. Now why are those true? Uh oh ... It seems it's subjective and it really is a case of being persuaded by others after all. Intellectual masturbation fags can go kill themselves maybe?
>>25628835It took the nominalists to rediscover this and fucking frege to take us back to plato's brain rot.
>>25628835contrary to the belief popular on this site, just talking in an asinine way does not make you smart.
>>25628784Prove yourself right first. A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Why don't you read something that's actually literally logical, lil pup
>>25628784Arguments may be meant to persuade, but that's not really enough to reduce them to just rhetoric. I don't know why you're using a pic of Aristotle's Rhetoric to claim this, since he distinguishes technical scientific and dialectical arguments from rhetorical enthymemes.
>>25628784agreed with previous anon, if you're in any way trying to ascribe that view to Aristotle, then you're just wrong and have clearly never read picrel and furthermore have no grasp of either rhetoric or logic. But if you read his logic and his rhetoric, it is lifechanging, I definitely think you should give it a go!
>>25628835Dunno, go ask a philosopher.
>>25628784There is a lump on your body that will make you groan if men rub it.
>>25628784Persuade you? I make arguments to stroke my ego, if you know what I mean.
>>25628835>Can you continue the process indefinitely? No, you run into primary notions and axioms.is the idea that you can't continue the process indefinitely objectively true, or just your opinion?
λόγος
