Replies

Ah, another druggie weighs in, and, as usual, with nothing substantial.

As Thomas Sowell said, “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”

“the flaw of sophism(philosophically speaking), is the presumption that one can know The Good; i.e., possess wisdom.”

1. No, the flaw of sophism is not the presumption that one can know The Good. Not even close. As a matter of fact, that statement is so bad, it’s not even wrong.

Since you have chosen to bring up the irrelevant matter of Sophism as a school of philosophy, even though it has been defunct for thousands of years, let’s just clear the air.

“In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, “sophist” came to denote a class of itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in “excellence” or “virtue,” speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. Sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.”

“Plato, the most illustrious student of Socrates, depicts Socrates as refuting the sophists in several Dialogues…”

“Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the “sophist” as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning.”

“The Sophists certainly were not directly responsible for Athenian democracy, but their cultural and psychological contributions played an important role in its growth. They contributed to the new democracy in part by relativizing truth, which allowed and perhaps required a tolerance of the beliefs of others.”

The flaws in the ancient school of Sophism are many, but they do not include “the presumption that one can know The Good.” This is not a flaw because it most certainly is possible to know the Good. Oh, sure, our understanding is inadequate to know the totality of everything that there is, but some things are quite clearly one or the other, when viewed through the lens of a properly formed conscience.

Even those of us who lack wisdom need only determine which of the many voices that clamor for our attention represent wisdom. Luckily, there are ways to do that.

However, all that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. As is clear, I use the term in its modern sense, in which it refers to an argument that appears to be valid, but actually is not. The only “flaw” in that sort of sophism is that it is intentionally deceptive (except as parroted by the deceived, in which case it is unintentionally deceptive).

“Like all socialists”

Yeah, you try and sell that to people who know me.

The really ironic thing about this is that it was our socialist enemies who, seeing the spark of an opportunity, fanned the flames of a very minor drug problem into an epidemic. This was done through both propaganda and the actual supply of drugs.

A reasonable man would look back to the sixties, when the drug problem first exploded, and see that drugs were associated with the political left. As, indeed, they still are.

In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates advanced argument that piety to many gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. Socrates exposed pagan esoteric sophistry.

Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. "Morals' are a deceptive replacement for the "avoidance of sin."

Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

But, since we are all properly obeying the * modern interpretation * of the First Amendment, good & evil isn't the question... Good & bad, right & wrong, etc., etc., ad nausea; are all inherently religious ideals.

The modern interpretation of the First Amendment (according to the liberal-tarians) says government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, government must never consider issues of morality and right and wrong...

So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturdays. But it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean, whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.

The mythical rights of men and women are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion. Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights." Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...

Excuse my sarcasm...