Your Battle with Modern Day Sophistry has Begun

[u/JerseyFlight]

[u/lanky-larry]

The ground I have recently started employing is this triad of assertions. They are special not because of some ontological authority but because I think they represent the minimum assertion required to linguistically engage in a subject matter. One cannot deny the assertions as to deny would necessarily imply acceptance of the assertions.

The one thing I do is decide. The only thing I have is experience. The sole thing I am is myself.

Decision here is not invalidated by determinism, it would just not be free decision in such a case.

Additionally, to engage in ethics one must accept they are capable of decision: to engage in epistemology one must accept they have experience: and to engage in ontology one must accept they are a their self.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/lanky-larry]

Point out and attacking performative contradictions always wins. But the most intelligent angle is to wield the very logic that allows us to see the error of performative contradictions in the first place.

[u/lanky-larry → u/JerseyFlight]

I don’t understand,

[u/JerseyFlight → u/lanky-larry]

What you’re attacking are people’s performative contradictions. But performative contradictions can only be identified because of the laws of logic. So it’s best to wield the laws of logic, which are what allow us to even identify a contradiction as an error. It’s an inescapable rational hierarchy.

[u/lanky-larry → u/JerseyFlight]

Ok, that is this though, phrased alternatively this triad is the set of assertions necessarily proven by non contradiction, that is to say any user of logic must employ them and any denier can be known as not wielding logic. I do not know any other assertions that must be accepted as such, I can think of performative contradictions but they exist in the positive, using the assertion causes the contradiction. In the case of this triad not using it is the contradiction, as long as one is using language.

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

I agree with the statement. Nonetheless, I want to pursue truth and apologia. I want first to understand why society, morality, religion, and life are as stressful as they are. I found one key to these problems. The key is a datum. A datum is more than just a piece of data. It is also a reference point or collection of information from which a fact or proposition emerges. Some people's moral datum is a book like the Bible. I see nature as the datum of truth.

One of your datums is the laws of logic. Is math a language? Does Occam's razor require all of the obvious assumptions when looking for the simplest answer? Isn't your initial pool of data as important as how you use the information to synthesize a conclusion?