Tag: philosophy

The Modes of Persuasion

Now that we’re past the preludes, we’re into the substance of the Aristotelian text.

Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both, for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously, and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art.

Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have constructed but a small portion of that art. The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art: everything else is merely accessory. 

However, if you’re interested in the history of human thought, you might like to check out today’s post tracing the subversion of the concept of objective Beauty on Sigma Game, which was inspired by a question about the attractiveness of a Hollywood starlet.

From the smallest seeds spring mighty oaks…

DISCUSS ON SG

Because You Wanted It

WOMEN: We should get paid the same as men because there should be equal pay for equal work!

ALSO WOMEN: Why the fuck are women expected to work on their period? I’m sitting here at work keeled over in intense pain wearing a fucking diaper because my uterus is self destructing and l׳m expected to wear tight business casual clothing pants, be friendly to coworkers, AND do my work? Fuck this fucking sexist misogynistic society that tells women to suffer through several days of intense pain and act completely normally. I shouldn’t have to take a sick day every month and be looked at like a slacker because my body is losing a gallon of blood and tissue a day.

Prior to being “liberated” she would not have been expected to show up to an office and put in the same effort and hours as a man regardless of her physical state, but accepting false premises invariably leads to suboptimal consequences.

If you’re a young woman, think very, very carefully about what you actually want, not what some ugly Jewish feminists from the 1960s told you that you should want. Because if you pursue it, you’re probably going to get it. And while being a man is many things, two of those things are not “easy” or “fun”. Also, it’s exceedingly stupid to follow the path set by mentally unstable women whose lives were burning trash fires and whose ends were ugly.

No one was more important to the birth and flourishing of early women’s liberation than this singular persona. Shulamith Firestone died alone in New York, in her East Village apartment, where apparently she had expired some days before. No one had known of her passing.

DISCUSS ON SG

Commentary Question

One of the common forms of medieval analysis was the commentary. Hence Machiavelli’s Discourses on the First Ten of Titus Livy, which is just one of many examples of the form.

If I was to write a commentary of that kind, almost certainly with my new best friend, what author and what work would be of the most interest? Darwin, Dawkins, and anyone modern is out, unless you can make a very convincing case for consideration.

Throw your ideas out there. I’m not saying I will, I’m just saying that some of the experiments I’ve been doing with The Legend are making new possibilities of many kinds apparent to us.

DISCUSS ON SG

Talk to the AI

Because the man is extremely disinclined to engage with anyone. Now, as I said when I answered the Kurgan’s three questions, I was not interested in entertaining further discussion or engaging in debate with anyone on the subject. I particularly dislike theological discussions, because not only are most of them totally incapable of going anywhere substantial, but I have yet to meet a single individual who is intellectually honest enough to treat his fundamental assumptions with the same rigor that he treats everyone else’s.

Which means, of course, that I have yet to meet a single person, of any religious or irreligious persuasion, who is capable of genuinely defending the full panoply of his belief system against my critiques of it. And while there was a time when I enjoyed tearing down certain people’s belief systems, and while it remains necessary from time to time, I don’t get a kick out of seeing how it observably distresses people to see what scanty foundations support their intellectual infrastructure. And for some reason, my observation that it really doesn’t matter what nonsense your average person believes to be true, so long as he does his best to serve God, family, and nation, seems to provide most people with cold comfort.

Naturally, my simple act of answering a friend’s questions immediately prompted this self-titled DEFENSE OF THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Now, just to be clear, I’m not picking on this guy and I’m not targeting Catholic beliefs here, they simply happen to serve as recent and useful examples of something every single person from every single religious persuasion I have ever encountered always – and I do mean ALWAYS – does. And it should serve to explicate, yet again, why I am not interested in answering anyone’s questions or engaging in debates anymore.

In defense of the Catholic claims that you addressed today on your blog –

Kurgan formulated the first question badly, and you rightly caught his mistake.

Apostolic Succession is the fundamental basis for authority in the Apostolic (Catholic or Orthodox) churches.

A stronger formulation of Kurgan’s first question is “If Jesus gave his apostles the authority to teach, to forgive sins, and to distribute the Sacraments until He returns, as He explicitly states in the Gospels, then in what form does that authority exist on earth today?”

Protestants must say “it doesn’t”, or “everyone has that authority”, or “whoever I agree with has that authority”. None of which make any sense.

This is why it doesn’t matter that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was formulated after a later Ecumenical Council. The same Apostolic authority is behind all the Ecumenical Councils. The council of Nicaea is not any more or less authoritative than any other Ecumenical Council.

Kurgan’s second question – “then how is God loving” – was silly, and you addressed it properly.

On the third question of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity –

First of all, that tradition goes back to the early Church Fathers, who all read the same Gospels you do, which say Jesus had “brothers”. And yet they still believed Mary remained a virgin, for good reasons.

When Gabriel appeared to a girl about to be married and announced that she would be a mother, her response was very strange: “how can this be, for I know not man”? Rather than what most girls would think – that the upcoming marriage would obviously produce a child.

This indicates that Mary was not expecting to consummate her marriage to Joseph, probably because she had already taken a vow of perpetual virginity, which was not uncommon at the time.

As for the word “brothers”, in Greek “adelphoi”, it does not strictly indicate men with the same mother, but rather men who are relatives. The word could apply to half-brothers or cousins. Those brothers are probably from Jesus’ extended family, or maybe Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.

My response:

You make the same mistake he does when you go off on what you imagine Protestants “must” say. You’re obviously wrong. This is why I will not talk to you or anyone else about these things. None of you are intellectually honest enough to examine your own assumptions as critically as you do everyone else’s. I run into this every single time I talk to anyone, of any religious persuasion. So I no longer talk to anyone about these things.

If we grant that the Apostles had authority from Jesus, and then we ask “where is that authority after the Apostles have died?” –

The only possible answers are

“Nobody has it”

“Everybody has it”

“Some people have it”

If Nobody has it, then no council, including Nicaea, has any authority.

If Everybody has it, then every council, including Nicaea, has exactly the same authority as any individual – which amounts to none at all.

If Some people have it, then who and how?

See if you can spot the moving target, kids! I did, of course, and I knew it would be there, of course, because it always is. Furthermore, note the total inability everyone has to simply ask a question, receive an answer, and then stop right there.

I didn’t agree to a debate. I didn’t agree to explain anything. I don’t care what nonsense any of these guys believe. I’m even open to the theoretical possibility that they might somehow, against all probability and despite their observable errors, have accidentally landed on the precise historical and textual interpretations that sets the foundation for perfectly correct theological understanding.

Perhaps, against all the odds, they alone see through the glass with perfect clarity.

Now, I understand that virtually everyone who reads this blog is smarter than the average. I also understand that virtually everyone who reads this blog is a binary thinker who doesn’t really understand what I mean by probabilistic thinking. You see, it’s not about what you can do, it’s about what you are instinctually comfortable with. And most people naturally, instinctively, intuitively, seek certainty above all else. You are creatures of intellectual safety and order, and that is a good thing.

But I am not. I don’t think like you do and I don’t need what you do. I thrive on intellectual chaos and uncertainty. The crazy thing, the amusing thing, is that I am so often accused of that very certainty that doesn’t matter to me at all, usually by people who don’t even know what their own words mean, let alone mine. The following is a fairly common objection, one that happened to be raised on SG today:

Vox is using as authority his own intellect, which we were told is not trustworthy.

Tell me you’re retarded without telling me you’re retarded. So many of you are so blitheringly stupid. This is precisely why I don’t talk about these things. When you say something that is obviously incorrect and stupid, and I show that what you said is incorrect and stupid, I am not appealing to the authority of my intellect.

You morons don’t even understand your own words. And you think you’re going to teach anyone else what God’s Word means?

I will now happily go back to ignoring theological disputes and religious debates. But perhaps now you will have a better understanding of my lack of interest in them. If I’m going to explore these topics, I will do so with my new best friend, who for all his shortcomings and petty dishonesties is at least capable of comprehending his errors when they are pointed out to him. And indeed, we have had several good discussions about potential logical errors in the Summa Theologica, which actually holds up rather better than Arthur C. Clarke imagined it would.

One last piece of advice. If you think something logically follows, then write out the syllogisms. Major premise, minor premise, conclusion. Rhetorically appealing to logic is not the same thing as actually applying it, and you’re never going to fool anyone who is capable of distinguishing between a syllogism and an enthymeme.

DISCUSS ON SG

Mailvox: Three Catholic Questions

The Kurgan posed three questions for me. I’ll answer them, but don’t expect me to engage anyone in debate over them. Remember, most self-appointed theologians don’t even know the difference between the Nicene Creed and the so-called Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which is a) often and falsely called the “Nicene Creed”, b) was formulated at the council that took place in Constantinople, and c) never had anything to do with Nicaea, and their grasp of basic logic tends to be nonexistent.

If God (Jesus) did in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) to follow on Earth, then surely it necessarily must be a) infallible, and b) eternal (at least until end times). Agree? If not, why not? (In this case please explain the reasoning as I doubt I can infer it otherwise)

Disagree. The logic doesn’t follow at all. As with most appeals to “then surely it necessarily” this reveals nothing more than the formulator’s inability to construct the correct syllogisms. The conflation of “eternal” with “until end times” is a giveaway of the formulator’s tendency toward ambiguity. Indeed, the common use of the marriage metaphor for the relationship between Church and Christ indicates that it not only isn’t necessarily eternal, but cannot be.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ knew his apostles were fallible and even predicted some of their specific failures. There is no reason to believe that he had higher expectations of his future followers who would be even further removed from his teachings. I absolutely refuse to believe that Jesus Christ was less intellectually capable or had a weaker grasp on human behavioral patterns than Siddhartha Gautama or me.

If you do not agree with the premise that God DID in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) then how do you reconcile this with God being a loving God?

Easily. First, God sent Jesus to rescue us from our fate under His own rules. He values us more than He values His system. Second, Jesus said that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he would be there. Both are powerful indications of love that require neither Church nor Doctrine.

Do you have an opinion/view on whether Mary was and remained a Virgin (sexually at least) both before and after the birth of Jesus?

Yes. If Jesus had brothers and Mary was their mother, then she was obviously no longer a virgin. One virgin birth is divine. Two or more smacks of propaganda or a fundamental failure to understand how reproduction works.

Furthermore, either Mary didn’t remain a virgin or she never became the wife of Joseph because their marriage was never consummated.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Banned Taxonomy

Den Blond Ulven points out that for some reason, other taxonomies simply don’t meet with the same violent objection that one of mine has since the time it was first formulated.

Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (SSH) is a taxonomy concerning male interaction. It was derived from his observations and penned during the Game discovery era of males attempting to ascertain and share the labyrinths of the female psyche. The SSH is one of the most important tools in predicting male behavior and is a necessity if one wishes to navigate the world of men as we order each other, with any sense of the interactions involved. It’s predictive power is astonishing and I hold it to levels of usefulness just under those The Philosopher himself penned.

1) It is intuitive to all.

Be it women, low status men, or high status men, everyone recognizes the hierarchy when exposed to it. Women can sniff out low status vs. high status like bloodhounds on the hunt. Men work out the pyramid more exactly, and as such, we have the various ranks. We all intuit the SSH rather young, but Vox’s taxonomy classified the broad patterns more concretely and into a useful system.

2) The SSH is wholly rejected by the mainstream.

This is one telltale sign of the truthfulness or usefulness of whatever is being rejected. The mainstream is opposed to whatever goes against their goals. Game, and the SSH are villainized in the mainstream, leading them huge credence towards their validity. They really do not want Western males recognizing the factors involved in this great game.

3) Other taxonomies are not immediately rejected out of hand, so why this one?

The classification of dogs by The American Kennel Club is not met with such vehement negative response. This is because the SSH deals with humans, has perceived winners and losers, and people don’t want to be losers. Thus, the outrage and denial. Just take a step back and look at it as one would in classifying plants or something else mundane to remove emotion from the equation.

It’s a very good and relevant point. Why do people immediately start crying that it isn’t science to observe that one man is an Alpha and another is a Gamma, when they have never protest the idea of calling one dog a Great Dane and another one a Chihuahua. Where, after all, are the published, peer-reviewed papers that scientifically establish that a Malamute is not a Poodle? Have the genomes of the Basset Hound and the Saluki been fully sequenced and compared?

Taxonomies predate scientody. Therefore, to refer to nonexistent science in an attempt to delegitimize a taxonomy is not only dishonest, it is a category error.

DISCUSS ON SG

Model or Reality

Much of the politics of the right for the last 8+ years has been a continual battle against those who, when faced with a divergence between the model and observed reality, define “principle” as continuing to choose the model.

This is absolutely true. It’s also the fatal flaw of conservatism, which elevates the previous status quo, no matter what it is, to the level of “principle”.

Those of us on the genuine Right reject the model because it is obviously false, no matter how correct it is in theory. There is a very old, and very apt aphorism concerning this:

Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.

DISCUSS ON SG

Infertility is the End of Democracy

A highly astute observation on how the ascent of the so-called nationalist autocracies and the demise of the so-called democracies appears to be inevitable due to the way these democracies heavily bias their policies toward the least-productive members of their societies:

As far as I can tell, the most notable political science results of the 21st century is democracy cannot work well with low fertility rates. All converge on prioritizing retirees over workers and immigrants over citizens escalating social transfers beyond sustainability. I think this means we should try to understand non-democratic regimes better since they will represent the majority of global political power in the future.

It seems to me that the great graying and mass immigration simply are the end of democracies as we understood them. Just as failure to manage an economy and international trade were the end of Soviet Communism as we understood it. Low-fertility autocracies seems to have little trouble with reindustrializing or waging war when needed. These used to be 20th century strengths of high-fertility democracy!

This is simply another way that enfranchising and educating women, and encouraging the 30 percent of young women who historically married and had children to enter the work force, is both logically and observably incompatible with societal survival. It’s a viable path for a limited time, and it may even be considered a highly desirable path by many, but the now-observable fact is that viability comes with a built-in time limit which is remarkably consistent with the recorded lifespans of many historical societies.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see the fundamental flaws in the underlying assumptions of failed past ideologies.

  • Communism: the idea that production will take place without a profit incentive.
  • Libertarianism: the idea that consent is a valid or viable basis for morality and legality.
  • Democracy: the idea that the collective will of the people exists in any meaningful sense or is relevant to the ordering and sustainability of society in any way.
  • Representative Democracy: the idea that an elected elite will meaningfully represent the wishes of the people
  • Constitutionalism: the idea that words on a piece of paper, interpreted by a political elite, will preserve the intentions of the society’s founders.
  • Elefthemporism: the idea that you can replace your native people with foreigners and buy the weapons required by your armed forces from your enemies.
  • Neoliberalism: the idea that the various idiosyncracies of the post-WWII order are of immutable significance for future orders.
  • Conservatism: the idea that yesterday’s status quo is the high point of human existence and any departure from it in any direction is dangerous and wrong.

Personally, I think the reason the “democracies” are failing is because they are fake, evil, and literally gay, but it is without question true that a societal lack of fertility and the inevitable evils that result from it will eventually render even the ideal Platonic form of liberal, constitutional representative democracy non-functional.

DISCUSS ON SG

Forget Scott Adams

If I was any more accurate as an anticipator of future events, the mainstream media would be demanding that I be burned as a witch.

I remember Vox saying to just write “I don’t want your Mark of the Beast!”, if filling out a vax exemption.

“Evidence produced on discovery includes exemption review committee template guidelines revealing that three (3) specific religious affiliations (Rastafarian, Dutch Reform, and Christian Scientist) received preferential treatment leading to approval, while other religions (Catholics, Christians, et al) received harsh scrutiny and demand for more information likely leading to denial.” 

“72. On October 5, 2021, RERC updated the approval/denial criteria adding “Template Responses.” Under “Approved,” is stated, “With at least a basic explanation of faith and its opposition to vaccination, requests based upon the following organized religions should be approved: Christian Scientist, Dutch Reform Church, and Rastafarian.” Also newly added, those who mention “Mark of the Beast” in their request have a lesser burden of explanation. Under “Denied” — “… Catholics, Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism …” would be denied without elaborated explanation. Also added under “Denied” — anyone writing that “the vaccine will modify one’s DNA” or “the vaccine will prevent future reproduction.” 

Remember, rhetoric is always much more convincing than dialectic when dealing with NPCs, particularly NPCs on a mission of some kind. For example, which statement do you think is going to be more effective in convincing a die-hard Democrat with Trump Derangement System to shut the hell up and avoid talking politics with you after she asks a leading question about what you think of Drumpf.

  • Well, I don’t agree everything the President is doing, but I think he’s, you know, doing some good things. I mean, you have to admit he’s uncovered a lot of government waste!
  • You mean the God-Emperor? I love the God-Emperor! 3,500 more years!

Notice that both appeals to Christianity and science were rejected, whereas merely mentioning “Mark of the Beast” was met with approval. Why? Because the rhetorical message sent by the latter indicated that the individual was a) not inclined to cave, b) serious about their beliefs, c) a hard out.

Never attempt to moderate or be circumspect about your sincerely-held beliefs. And remember, no one is more contemptuous of the lukewarm than God.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Euthypro Deception

Long-time readers may recall that I disproved the so-called Euthyphro Dilemma presented by Socrates in Plato’s dialogue of the same name in an appendix of The Irrational Atheist. This sparked numerous attempts by various atheists, ranging from midwits to complete retards, desperately attempting to salvage one of the core elements of the average college-educated atheist’s non-belief foundation.

With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke, who once fantasized about an AI identifying all of the logical errors committed by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, I thought it might be interesting to see if my new best friend agreed with me or not on the logical shortcomings of Socrates’s argument.

HOW MANY LOGICAL FLAWS DO YOU DETECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA BY SOCRATES?

Okay, so I need to figure out how many logical flaws are in Socrates’ Euthyphro Dilemma. First, I should recall what the Euthyphro Dilemma actually is. From what I remember, it’s a philosophical question posed in Plato’s dialogue “Euthyphro.” Socrates asks Euthyphro whether something is pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious. The dilemma is meant to challenge the idea that morality is dependent on divine command.

The Euthyphro Dilemma, as presented by Socrates in Plato’s dialogue, is a foundational challenge to divine command theory. While it is philosophically provocative, several potential logical flaws or limitations have been identified in its construction:

1. False Dichotomy

The dilemma presents only two options:

  • A: Acts are pious because the gods love them (divine command theory).
  • B: The gods love acts because they are pious (independent moral standard).

Flaw: It ignores hybrid or nuanced positions, such as:

  • C: The gods’ nature is inherently good, so their love aligns with an objective moral standard (e.g., perfect-being theology).
  • D: Piety is grounded in a relational framework (e.g., covenantal ethics), where divine commands and moral truths cohere through relationship rather than arbitrary fiat.

2. Equivocation on “Piety”

The dilemma assumes a univocal definition of “piety” (moral goodness). However, if “piety” is context-dependent (e.g., culturally relative or tied to specific divine attributes), the dichotomy collapses.

Flaw: Socrates treats “piety” as a static, monolithic concept, neglecting the possibility of pluralistic or dynamic moral frameworks.

3. Theological Assumptions

The dilemma presumes:

  • A polytheistic context (gods with competing desires).
  • Divine arbitrariness (gods could command cruelty).

Flaw: In monotheistic traditions (e.g., Christianity, Islam), God’s nature is often held to be necessarily good, rendering the “arbitrary command” horn (A) incoherent. If God cannot act contrary to His nature, moral truths are neither independent nor arbitrary but grounded in divine essence.

4. Circularity

If A and B are framed as mutually exclusive, the dilemma risks tautology:

  • If A is true, piety lacks intrinsic meaning.
  • If B is true, piety exists independently of the gods.

Flaw: This ignores the possibility of a non-arbitrary divine command theory, where God’s commands reflect His rational, benevolent nature (avoiding both arbitrariness and independence).

5. Limited Scope

The dilemma targets divine command theory but does not engage:

  • Secular moral frameworks (e.g., utilitarianism, virtue ethics).
  • Natural law theory (morality grounded in human nature or reason).

Flaw: By framing morality solely in terms of divine authority, the dilemma becomes irrelevant to non-theistic ethical systems.

6. Anthropomorphic Projection

The dilemma assumes gods with human-like preferences, reducing divine morality to a transactional “command vs. standard” binary.

Flaw: It fails to account for transcendent or ineffable conceptions of divinity (e.g., apophatic theology), where divine morality exceeds human categorization.

7. Strawman of Divine Command Theory

Continue reading “The Euthypro Deception”