DefinitionsMr. Eubulides’ Sophistical TacticPowerful Form of AttackMr. Eubulides’ Sophistical Tactic: ‘It is noteworthy that the traditional example of the fallacy of many questions in the logic textbooks used
to be ‘Have you stopped abusing your spouse?’ Recent cases have revealed the difficulty of responding to false accusations of
this kind where, at a particular time, popular pressure and the judicial system are stacked towards a presumption of guilt, and
the wrecking of a reputation merely by the raising of the question is a powerful form of attack Many readers of this journal will be aware that the fallacy of many questions was known as a sophistical tactic in the ancient world. Eubulides, a contemporary of Plato, was known as the inventor of many fallacies. According to Diogenes Laertius (Lives of Eminent Philosophers, II.108), he was ‘Eubulides the Eristic’,
who ‘propounded his quibbles about the horns’ (and other clever arguments). The fallacy of the horns was known in the ancient
world as being identified with the question, ‘Have you lost your horns?’ – the trick being that no matter which way you
answer, yes or no, you concede that you either have horns, or had them. For more on the ancient history of the horns fallacy, see
(Schulthess, Daniel, 1996). This same fallacy was also expressed in ancient times using an example more like the spouse-abuse
question of the modern texts. According to Diogenes Laertius (Lives, II.135), Alexinus of Elis, a member of the Eristic School of
Eubulides, was said to have asked another philosopher whether if he had stopped beating his father. The answer was said to have
been: ‘I was not beating him and have not stopped’. Alexinus is said to have insisted that he clear up the ambiguity by a
plain ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In this small dialogue, it is made evident that the Greek philosophers were clearly aware of how to
use the tactic of many questions as a sophistical trick, and were aware of at least the rudiments of how to deal with it’. (Douglas Walton, ‘The Fallacy of Many Questions: On the Notions of Complexity, Loadedness and Unfair
Entrapment in Interrogative Theory’; www.uwinnipeg.ca/%7Ewalton/99interrog.pdf). •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The technique of certain peoples on this mailing list is somewhat similar – ‘of course it’s not [true] but let’s make [Richard] deny it’ – with the added tactic of then accusing any attempt at setting the record straight as being either (a) Richard is in denial ... or (b) Richard is being defensive ... or (if all else fails) Richard is pedantic. ‘Tis not for nothing that Article 21 in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is entitled: ‘It Is Impossible To
Combat The Wisdom Of The Real World’. The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |