It is no secret that confirmation bias finds a genial home in our eristic thinking about politics, but recent scholarship indicates a problem that's deeper and more dangerous than many have suspected.
|
|
After it was determined their furry friend's life was not in danger, townspeople and tourists celebrated the kitty's unique cat-eristic, offering her treats in exchange for a quick peek at her curious coat.
|
|
Eristic was a type of "question-and- answer"Alexander Nehamas. "Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato's Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry". (page 6) teaching method popularized by the Sophists, such as Euthydemos and Dionysiodoros. Students learned eristic arguments to "refute their opponent, no matter whether he [said] yes or no in answer to their initial question".
|
|
Plato believed that the eristic style "did not constitute a method of argument" because to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments, which therefore weakens one's position.Alexander Nehamas. "Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato's Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry". (page 7).
|
|
Schopenhauer considers that only logic pursues truth. For him, dialectic, sophistry and eristic have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself because it aims at victory. He names these three last methods as "eristic dialectic (contentious argument)."Controversial Dialectic on CoolHaus.
|
|
Argumentation theory is a field of study that asks critical questions about eristic arguments and the other types of dialogue.
|
|
London: Routledge, 1995. P. 585. Print. Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.H.D. Rankin (1983).
|
|
In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."Irwin, T.H. "Plato's Objection to the Sophists." The Greek World.
|
|
Euclid was also interested in concepts and dilemmas of logic. Euclid and his Megarian followers used dialogue and the eristic method to defend their ideas. The eristic method allowed them to prove their ideas by disproving those of the one they were arguing with and therefore indirectly proving one's own point (see reductio ad absurdum). When attacking a demonstration, it was not the premises assumed but the conclusions that he attacked, which presumably means that he tried to refute his opponents by drawing absurd consequences from their conclusions.
|
|
Unlike Plato, Isocrates (often considered a Sophist) did not distinguish eristic from dialectic. He held that both lacked a "'useful application' ... that created responsible citizens",Marsh, Charles. Classical rhetoric and modern public relations: an Isocratean model. New York: Routledge, 2013.
|
|
404 BCE. Another Euthydemus is the eponymous character in one of Plato's dialogues, Euthydemus, written on logic and logical fallacies, or sophisms. The characters Euthydemus and his brother Dionysodorus are sophists questioned by SocratesPlato, Euthydemus, 273a–304c in a confrontation of the Euthydemian eristic and the Socratic elenchus. A further Euthydemus is mentioned in Plato's Republic as the son of Cephalus.
|
|
Euthydemus of Chios (Latin: Euthydemus, Greek: Εὐθύδημος) also Euthydemos was a Greek sophist born in Chios who emigrated with his brother Dionysodorus to Thurii in Italy. When exiled from this city, he went to Athens where he lived for many years. Euthydemus was an older contemporary of Socrates. Plato mentions his ideas in a dialogue called Euthydemus, but due to his eristic views and arguments thought that not historical personal.
|
|
While there is in front in the score with 2–1 and just ten minutes before the end of the match left with 9 players. Here to say that this contribution had the eristic arbitration and Mr Kapitanis intact but the responsibility lies with José Manuel Rey has exhausted all limits of patience that reason player who accepts a second yellow card and sent off. Finally, AEK losing the game 3–2.
|
|
Aulus Gellius, vii. 10. 1-4 He is represented in the preface of Plato's Theaetetus as being responsible for writing down the conversation between Socrates and the young Theaetetus many years earlier. Socrates is also supposed to have reproved Euclid for his fondness for eristic disputes. He was present at Socrates' death (399 BCE),Plato, Phaedo, 59B-C after which Euclid returned to Megara, where he offered refuge to Plato and other frightened pupils of Socrates.
|
|
This explains why life begins, and later ends in death. :And to this day, things appear and disappear in this very manner. The names of Eris and Aneris (who are later given a brother, Spirituality), are used to show some fundamental Discordian principles in "Psycho-Metaphysics": :The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made _concepts_ and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.
|
|
Argumentation includes deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests—or choose to change them—in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence.
|
|
The Principia Discordia holds three core principles: the Aneristic (order), the Eristic (disorder), and the notion that both are mere illusions. Due to these principles, a Discordian believes there is no distinction between order and disorder, since they are both man-made conceptual divisions of the pure element of chaos. An argument presented by the text is that it is only by rejecting these principles that you can truly perceive reality as it is, chaos. It is difficult to estimate the number of Discordians because they are not required to hold Discordianism as their only belief system,Rabinovitch, Shelly & Lewis, James.
|
|
In particular, the concept of identification can expand our vision of the realm of rhetoric as more than solely agonistic. To be sure, that is the way we have traditionally situated it: “Rhetoric,” writes Burke, “is par excellence the region of the Scramble, of insult and injury, bickering, squabbling, malice and the lie, cloaked malice and the subsidized lie. . . . We begin with an anecdote of killing (in Samson Agonistes and “Empedocles on Etna”), because invective, eristic, polemic, and logomachy are so pronounced an aspect of rhetoric” (19-20). But while impelled to acknowledge this nature, we can look for more from rhetoric, he argues: : “We need never deny the presence of strife, enmity, factions, as a characteristic motive of rhetorical expression.
|
|
Dialectic or dialectics (, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue), also known as the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned methods of argumentation. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and the modern pejorative sense of rhetoric.see Gorgias, 449B: "Socrates: Would you be willing then, Gorgias, to continue the discussion as we are now doing [Dialectic], by way of question and answer, and to put off to another occasion the (emotional) speeches [Rhetoric] that [the Sophist] Polus began?" Dialectic may thus be contrasted with both the eristic, which refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument (rather than searching for truth), or the didactic method, wherein one side of the conversation teaches the other.
|
|