h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Going to take some time to get my head around that, I've been out of thinking mode for a while, need to get the old gears turning.

Dont sprain your brains on it; it's really not so hard. Those like Hegel who persist in seeing value in the ontological argument can only do so by assuming something they have no right to, namely that in talking about reality they can distinguish between "reality" and "talking about reality". Their only refuge is to go all mystical, which is a smokescreen as far as proper use of language is concerned.

To retain the mystical dimension without abusing language was Wittgenstein's singular achievement. A1024156

It's more the language that I find difficult, ironically. Takes several read-throughs.

Thanks also for the link .

Anything that you need to do always takes fifteen more minutes than the time you have in which to do it.
-sunsetstars02

Whoever said sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me was a bully!
~Christine

Welcome sun and rain

echomikeromeo, 929375

Cogito, ergo sum. (I know, I know, it's cliche...)

I don't consider myself as much of a philosopher myself as a historian of philosophy. Could I join the Guild in that capacity?

Hi, EM. Looks like we need all the input we can get right now. Must say I rather like your page. If you're to study law, you'll need some reasoning techniques in addition to historical stuff. Not that philosophy has the monopoly on that - although it perhaps has a hegemony.

Cheers, Doc.

Thank you for your kind compliment.

In school we learned about the Ancient Greek Sophists, who were philosophers that believed that there were no truths and that what was considered 'true' could be manipulated either way. Very legal....

EMR

That's cool, Em, but these days 'sophistry' is a term of insult. I guess they were into rhetoric rather than philosophy. Sadly, the law involves convincing ignorant juries. Rhetoric is one way of doing it.

Seems kinda unethical to me. Have you learned about truth tables at all? They are really interesting and not too difficult. Venn diagrams are a similar but more graphical idea.

Cheers, toxx.

I've heard of truth tables, but I don't really know anything about them.

No matter whether someone may have committed the crime or not, they're still entitled to legal representation, and along with that comes rhetoric. I don't think it's unethical to try to be convincing a jury one way or another, since as counsel you don't know for sure whether your client is innocent or guilty. As long as the representation for prosecution and defense is equal (ie both counsel are equally skilled advocates) there is a fair chance of discovering the truth. The problem is where counsel for the defense is not up to par (possibly because the defendant cannot afford halfway decent counsel) and thus the defendant does not have adequate representation. (I ramble. Pet topic of mine.)

Anyway, if I was 'accused' of being a sophist, I'd consider it a compliment. Being able to manipulate people is not necessarily a bad thing. All joking aside, rhetorical skills can help persuade people to shed prejudices and come round to a better view of thinking.

EMR

You rightly admonish me, Em. Even so, manipulating people has to be taken seriously. Your pet topic appeals to me too. Any misuse, or indeed, imbalance of power is a problem.

For myself, I am an academic which involves science as well as philosophy. No self-respecting academic would use an argument he knew to be invalid. It seems to me that a Sophist would. If this distinction doesn't matter to you, I guess it's fine to be a lawyer. I don't think I could do it.

Maybe I'm teasing a bit here, but hey - let's have a discussion.

toxx

I did hear of a case recently where a young man pleaded guilty to stealing and nobody represented him in the Magistrates court. The young man had put somehting in his pocket and meant to pay for it but then saw something much more interesting. He forgot about the first thing, lost interest in the second and walked out.

The store detective saw him and pounced. The young man considered that he had in fact stolen the item because he had left without paying.

Luckily the Clerk to the court spoke to the Magistrate and asked for the young man to be offered legal advice. This happened and the case was eventually dropped as there was no intention to steal.

The moral being "sophistry can produce a good result" -- but it does so more or less accidentally. Luck also produces good results occasionally, but that is not to recommend luck as something to rely on.

Sophistry -- making the worse seem the better argument -- is what Socrates was condemned to death for.

You could see the moral that way - I'd prefer the one that only a fool represents himself - or is it that, "A man who represents himself is represented by a fool"?

Curious thing; the law's a lottery, and yet lawyers are no fools.

Presumably the reason is, lawyers stand to litigants as casino owners stand to their customers (see A1084673 How to Gamble and Win).

Without becoming too cynical I think that many people lose out - especially in cases like this where the legal advice would be free - because they jump to the conclusion that the law is more biased against them than it actually is, or they don't know what the law says about things like "intent".

My dad is an academic too (actually, a professor of philosophy) and when I told him I found sophistry an interesting point of view he was basically disgusted. But that is how our criminal justice system works. And if I can turn that fact to my advantage to assist people who wouldn't have a chance otherwise, it's worthwhile.

Socrates was not condemned for sophistry. Socrates didn't have anything to do with the Sophists; the actual philosophical school evolved after his death, I believe. Socrates was executed allegedly because he was corrupting the young people of Athens. In reality, the traditional Athenians felt threatened by Socrates' revolutionary thinking. Because he tried to get people to think with more open minds -- and to reject the traditional religious beliefs if necessary -- the Athenians were concerned about a 'breaking down of traditional values', and so saw fit to put an end to such a threat.

I'm sure lawyers are manipulative. One of the reasons they have such a bad reputation. But such manipulative skills on both sides of the case (if things are gone about correctly) will end up cancelling each other out and hopefully leading to the truth of the case. John Mortimer's fictional barrister Horace Rumpole said that he tries to put his clients' cases the way they would if they had the skills of advocacy. And that's what any good lawyer should try to do.

EMR

I can understand your dad's reaction, Em. Rather more than here in the UK, in the good ole US of A you will assist people who have the money to pay you. The better you are, the more money you'll get. Does the name 'OJ Simpson' ring any bells?

Has your dad mentioned 'casuistry'. Very like sophistry, but usually associated with the Jesuitical wing of the Roman Catholic Church.

I hope you learn the more rational ways of arguing too. The use of counterexamples and 'reductio ad absurdum' is a good place to start. An interesting test of the coherence of a set of evidence, for example, is that it isn't in itself manifestly incoherent; neither does it entail anything incoherent.

OJ Simpson, a name that is all too familiar to me. While we're mentioning names, how 'bout Sacco and Vanzetti? They were executed because they couldn't afford a lawyer that would attest that their anarchist beliefs were not enough to convict them of first-degree murder.

I have not heard the term 'casuistry'. I'll ask my dad about it.

I have dealt a bit in rational arguing, mainly in my two experiences as lead counsel for the defense in the 'mock trial' program (and I must say, I put my fellow defenders to shame). 'Reducing to ridiculousness/absurdity'? Sounds good.

EMR