How to Argue - Philosophical Reasoning: Crash Course Philosophy #2

[@omi_cha]

i hold so much adoration for whoever composed the intro music for this series. it's ethereal

[@shawofit]

It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ―KoreTen

[@jayjung5234]

Arguments aren't about winning.

[@tisajokt7676]

I think in a sense arguments do have a "win" state, where all parties are convinced in the truth. You can concede and still "win" if your concession means you've forfeited a falsity. So KoreTen's statement remains applicable: A smart person is generally more open to new information and more likely to seek the truth, and is also more likely to possess the truth in their argument, making the win state more easily accessible.

[@lm601]

Albert Shaw I'm smart and you will not convince me of the contrary! That was a pretty smart comment, wasn't it?

[@Drac.mp4]

recess?

[@laffy7204]

It's actually very easy, it's called the Socratic method

[@IslaDrummond]

Something that I've seen in internet arguments quite a lot is: "Person's opinion" + "True (enough) premise" = Conclusion. Then the person refuses to back down because they know their reasoning is right, but they won't acknowledge that one of their premises was just something they believe to be true, and not something that is widely accepted to be true.

[@seangannon6005]

Isla Drummond ah yes, the old feelsies over realsies argument

[@LolLol-wi3zy]

Doesn't need to be widely accepted to truly believe that what ur doing or thinking is right

[@edrian.cristobal]

Is it also the philosopher's saying that "if you think you're right, then you're wrong"?

[@gabrielkage8991]

Very astute observation

[@jashnchahal7544]

Lol Lol yeah that would be another fallacy... something like just because 5 million people believe it to be true it does not have to be true

[@mormegil231]

Just to be precise. The original Aristotle quote is: Φύσει μέν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πολιτικόν. Which translates: to The Human is a political animal...It was just translated in the past by many scholars as "Man is a rational animal". So he was not that sexist...His translators were.

[@bram9333]

Good to know

[@Nangong123]

@@seferraziel9534 Thank god for moral progression 9

[@jordanpeterson8414]

@@seferraziel9534 Was he? Or did he wrote in a more acceptable style? You just can say, that you think he was a sexist.

[@aplus1080]

Political animal is so much better. 😮

[@williamspringer9447]

Here are a couple nice quotes from Aristotle .•••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric ••••••••••

[@danielbat9887]

What do you call a group of philosophers? A "disagreement".

[@Theraot]

+Daniel Băț ba dum tis

[@azotan1]

+Daniel Băț What do you call a group of people that can't disagree on anything? Fascists.

[@gabrielrangel956]

+TheAzet89 Pretty sure they did though

[@shilohlindemulder1235]

+Jacques Hanekom No, didn't you watch the video?

[@shilohlindemulder1235]

+Jacques Hanekom mine was a joke about a joke about the joke. jk

[@sassywells3783]

you can never lose an argument if you say 'shut up nerd' at the end

[@sassywells3783]

Iyyappan Sivaraman it's a joke don't take it too seriously

[@c.l.6523]

Ok Anti-intellectual whose watching Crash Course for some unknown reason.

[@adonismoy721]

I would just say thank you because I’m watching Crash Course

[@xblackcatx1312]

Sassy Wells just call them a racist, or laugh at them...Leftists are masters at this. If either of those arguments wont work, calling someone a fascist is also very effective at proving you are correct and your foe is false.

[@freeloader69]

xblackcatx13 Your argument is not valid. I suggest you study this type of material formally, especially logical fallacies.

[@jaysans144]

Hank, this is exactly what I wanted out of this course. People need more philosophy in their lives, especially since education doesn't really value it as much as it should anymore. Having a meme-guy such as yourself present it in such a smart way will definitely do the world good.

[@Jorp-21]

I think you explaining deduction really well. Bonus points for being the first explanation of it I've seen that didn't use that Sherlock Holmes trivia

[@crashcourse]

+Intu Well, I can't promise we're going to get through philosophical reasoning without a little Sherlock Holmes. Apologies in advance. -Nicole

[@Jorp-21]

+CrashCourse fair enough, I hope his little thought bubble-cartoon is cool

[@Jake-kn3xg]

+Intu Sherlock uses abduction though.

[@Jorp-21]

+Caffa Jake You're quite right

[@Jake-kn3xg]

Allofusien Abduction it is.

[@AlexBermann]

The sad part is that many people can't be persuaded by arguments - especially in comment sections such as this one. Generally, people are surprised when I concede that my opponent in aa discussion was right and that I was wrong. This should not be that surprising. Schopenhauer was on point when he wrote a book about Sophisms and called it "the art of being right" This is because people are naturally inclined towards Sophism. Plato knew that and was very frustrated about the success demagogues and lawyers had because of that. I believe tht this is part of the reason of the politeia - Plato desired that the leaders would be in a different mode - a mode which actually was interested in truth except in winning arguments. This is the most important virtue for Plato. I still see philosophical approaches when people actually don't fully try to oppose a statement but agree inn general but just want to inquire on some points or add something to it. Aristotles Logic is a very powerful tool to deal with conflicts without resorting to Sophism since it can actually disprove something. This is the true power of logic: true contradictory statements can't both be true. Unfortunatelly, in a court of law, in a parliament or in other places where decisions have to be made, logic is not nearly enough to resolve the conflicts. What I strife for is not becoming more convincing. I want to become wiser, I want to avoid convincing people to do mistakes or believe in my mistakes. I believe Logic helped me on that endeavor, but I'm not there yet.

[@Ryan-kh9xn]

Alex Bermann it's very odd that someone would advocated Plato and Aristotle, Plato being anti reason and Aristotle the father of reason

[@AlexBermann]

How was Plato anti reason?

[@blovlh6258]

Alex Bermann Platonism is the foundation of america if I'm correct.

[@AlexBermann]

Plato was a few thousand years too old for that

[@marcosgutierrez9100]

Alex Bermann I don't argue to prove something I argue to learn something

[@bryanwan6169]

Most relaxing intro theme ever.

[@bryanwan6169]

Also, great 'entertainer' music in the thought bubble.

[@natcamargo5344]

+Cryp Tic yes!

[@afroceltduck]

+Cryp Tic Kudos to Michael Aranda!

[@ahmadnawazwattoo5407]

Dude even soothing things arent as soothing as that

[@rawrcakes7]

I want it on repeat

[@chiragdevlia3550]

Can I just say how grateful I am to be in this time and age where this knowledge is right at my finger tips. Thank you so much for these videos i’m so grateful for you!

[@sfgiantsmatt8912]

Premise 1: Cheese has holes Premise 2: More cheese = more holes Premise 3: More holes = less cheese Conclusion: More cheese = less cheese

[@Fearofthemonster]

fallacy: I forgot its name but this is the fallacy about using homophones. "more holes" in p2 and "more holes" in p3 do not mean the same thing.

[@ncaged6753]

Fallacy of Equivocation is the one you're looking for.

[@florramirez2789]

Observation 1) It is necessary for there to be more holes than cheese ex in "More holes = less cheese?" to equal "More cheese = less cheese", but in "More cheese = more holes" is there the same amount of holes and cheese? "only guidance is the word "more" for "More cheese = more holes". Both descriptions include the word more, if 1 included more, there would be more, but if both included more, they would be equal...? Question 1??) Are the holes the same sizes and take up the same space as the cheese or less?

[@tomhudson6413]

On the basis that all cheese contains the same amount of holes, surely more cheese = more holes? Is that a valid conclusion that can be drawn out from the stated premises?

[@0Fyrebrand0]

+Fearofthemonster I agree, the "holes" in P2 aren't things that are being "added." They're just a description of the air pockets that naturally form and define where the solid cheese exists. The "holes" we are getting "more" of in P3, however, suggests actually removing pre-existing cheese, which is not the same thing. +George Economou I think we all know this is obviously silly, but still a fun argument to add "more holes" to! :P

[@seredahawke3207]

Personally I am a big fan of Socrates' method of arguing, getting someone to argue with themselves and then walk off laughing to yourself.

[@Fearofthemonster]

There used to be a subject called "logic" in school. They don't teach it anymore.

[@KMissPerfect]

In Serbia they teach us logic. It's an awesome subject.

[@Fearofthemonster]

Here, politicians shout at the microphone. They appeal to emotions instead of logic. Many people vote based on their emotional connection with the party as if they are football fans cheering for their team.

[@petarjovovic308]

Fearofthemonster just bcs here in serbia logic is taught in school does not mean its applied one quick look at our leaders is more than enough to confirm that

[@athenaskid]

I took it as a dual enrolled class at a university when I was a high school junior. Awesome awesome class

[@jeezwitz3325]

Most schools don't teach students logic because those who control schools wants students to be a robot in which, they can program something whatever they input and told over and over again.

[@TheMABExperience]

"All cats are mammals. I'm a mammal, therefore, I'm a cat." - Facebook Commenters

[@Xidnaf]

Is anyone else really confused by the barber paradox? Video: "No matter what the barber does, he'll wind up breaking the rules." Me: "Yeah, ok, I'm with you so far." Video: "Therefor all groups must be members of themselves, otherwise the logic that supports the group's existence doesn't hold up." Me: "what the fuck are you even talking about"

[@RossPeterson06]

+Xidnaf I really enjoy your videos, by the way. Looking forward to see what comes next. (no rush)

[@andyman1111996]

+Xidnaf yea, you're not alone in that...

[@Pfhorrest]

+Xidnaf The barber is a proxy for talking about the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. Does that set contain itself? If it doesn't, then it's a set that doesn't contain itself... so it does contain itself. If it does, then it's a set that contains itself... so it doesn't contain itself. Russell used it to illustrate the problems with naive set theory, and justify the need for a more rigorously axiomatic set theory.

[@ronpaulrevered]

+Xidnaf There is a law in logic called the law of identity. I think the paradox illustrates this, but the paradox seem like a false one. The paradox only exists as a result of the silly dictates imposed on the barber by the rulers of beard land.

[@Rottenation]

+Xidnaf I'm pretty sure it's the opposite, a group (set, formally) must not be a member of itself. If it is, paradoxes may happen.

[@Rizerr96]

Most people who take part in the KZbin comments cannot be persuaded, no matter how good your argument. So, your argument is in salad.

[@LittleLion93]

+Rizerr96 It's also true that pretty much no one makes good arguments, mostly I see insults :P

[@senorsushi6625]

+LittleLion93 because kids come here.

[@ClimbaRock5]

While I agree that most on the internet can't (won't) be persuaded, I think there is still value in at least trying to have good conversations and arguments.

[@ClimbaRock5]

Also, in salad XD

[@TheOtherNeutrino]

+LittleLion93 NO IT'S NOT. FUCK YOU. /s

[@prajwolgyawali6770]

Plato's Tripartite Soul: 1. Rational | Logical - seeks truth and is swayed by facts and arguments 2. Spirited | Emotional - how feelings fuel your actions 3. Appetite | Physical Desires - drives you to eat, and protect yourself. Bertrand Russel Barber - 4:04 Argument, Logic, Premise, Predicate - similar to that of learned in Rosen's Discrete Mathematics chapter 1.

[@jimsluder]

To all of the Crash Course staff and to Hank and John, thanks for all of your creativity! As one of your older, and I do mean ooooolder followers, the material you guys put out helps me to understand the younger generation considerably more than I would without your library of great material. I learn a great deal and have material reinforced that I thought I once knew. Or as Don Hendley put more eloquently, "All the things I thought I'd figured out, I have to learn again." The Nerdfighter Network has given me a great insight into what the likes, dislikes, and challenges are of my college-age grandchildren as well as my younger grandchildren. Enjoying the new "Philosophy" series and looking forward to more videos about the subject. Thanks again for all of the great material and your dedication to educating the world!

[@williamspringer9447]

Jim Sluder •••• Don't worry , neither generation was taught the science of Logic in school , both nice and stupid . The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@LazerLord10]

I can't hear squarespace without a part of my brain saying _Build it beautiful._

[@flynn9500]

+LazerLord10 Same here actually; LTT ftw.

[@50ShadesOfEndo]

You should

[@DtWolfwood]

+LazerLord10 the branding is strong with square space.

[@UnashamedlyHentai]

+EZ E Nope. Squarespace is legit awesome. I helped my dad get his small business website setup a couple years back. It was great. The business died, but the website looked fantastic, and even he could maintain it.

[@patriciamcgeorge2575]

I LOVE CRASH COURSE! I teach with it, almost always learn with it (1000000000000000 times better than school!) and even enjoy learning with it! I EVEN BINGE-WATCH crash course, sometimes even re-watching episodes. Ever heard of an education platform having a fandom? Surprise! Thanks, Greens & co.

[@chase5950]

Jesus can walk on water. I can walk on pickles. Pickles are 96% water therefore I am 96% Jesus.

[@unixone7558]

+Top Dog Unsound argument and religious bait.

[@sejrefraincisa4276]

+Top Dog That is a valid argument based on those facts. Well done.

[@sejrefraincisa4276]

DJR Awww, stop ruining jokes....

[@toahordika6]

+Top Dog Well my gardener is 100% Jesus

[@bingbung]

Only logical

[@dafuqmr13]

1. I have a pen 2. I have an apple -Ugh (?), applepen

[@ayushsharma9270]

+

[@stevenbustamante9626]

Pen pineapple apple pen

[@classiccarfanatic]

You, are, not, Bob, Dylan!

[@manh385]

It really works ...

[@Hamburger-vg7vt]

Pen Pineapple Apple Pen.

[@learn_french]

This was really great

[@williamspringer9447]

LEARN FRENCH WITH VINCENT •••• Hey, maybe he'll teach you the first law of the science of Logic next time ? But don't bet on it .

[@wassabiii600]

I'm getting smarter by "wasting time" on KZbin ! Love it!

[@pizzapowwow5848]

hank green is white john green is white therefore hank green is john green

[@samuelsmith2707]

Not all white people are john or hank. Your logic is flawed.

[@banditbykko8798]

Jaden :3 validity is not the truth

[@ugurmumcu9845]

there is a lot of white people you can't say they all hg or jg

[@ProudAmerican111]

Nope.

[@harryjebb7235]

Bandit ByKKo but his argument isn’t valid, cause: the middle term ( white people) is not distributed in the premises. Therefore you can not have a valid argument with the fallacy of undistributed middle term

[@alexhansen2102]

I have a philosophy final in a few hours, this man is a life saver

[@blovlh6258]

Faithfully Restored It depends on how that person learns.

[@Argacyan]

Will John become a Philosoraptor during this CC series?

[@mikekuppen6256]

+gnhtd1 Yes! Please Thoughtcafé, make this happen!

[@AnaseSkyrider]

+gnhtd1 Maybe it's because I have a lame sense of humor and a low standard of entertainment... But I want to see that as a visual gag too.

[@jdrock5265]

+Anase Skyrider I second everything you just said.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

Piotr Woźniak No, not "Philosophers". "Philosoraptor". As in, the meme with the velociraptor with captions that ask philosophical-sounding questions. The joke is because of John's reptilian tail in the thoughtcafe graphics earlier in the episode.

[@bestpseudonym1693]

+gnhtd1 No, because John Green is a member of the scientific community, all members of the scientific hate most members of philosophy and most of philosophy. therefore John Green hates most members of philosophy and most of philosophy.

[@ReaderViaNil]

Every crash course series has been a wonderful journey, I am happy and thankful for this new one :) thank you Hank and the cc crew, for all your hard work.

[@hippogriffgrrl10]

I'm a long time nerdfighter, so I have huge faith in both Hank and John, but I must say--hooking up with PBS has lent you guys a lot of... what do I want to say... legitimacy? Like, I was talking to my mom about how I was going to start this crash course with Hank Green, and she was like "oh", like, "so just some random thing on the Internet", but when I told her it was in conjunction with PBS she was totally into it, like, "oh, yeah, that'd be great for you to do." And as vlogbrothers and PBS are the only two media outlets I have total faith in, this like, perfect.

[@williamspringer9447]

hippogriffgrrl10 •••• Hey, maybe Hank will actually teach you the first law of the science of Logic in the next video. But I doubt it .

[@hippogriffgrrl10]

@@williamspringer9447 I'm really glad you took time out of your day to reply to a 3-year-old comment. Well done.

[@sgufanboy]

I'm already in love with this show! Thank you John and Hank for bringing us Crash Course, it's awesome to see folk so intent on educating people.

[@PizzaManager101]

This episode alone was surprisingly enlightening! I always used to consider a bipartite soul system, lumping spirited and appetitive into an emotional bundle. I never considered having that bundle be separated until now, but it makes sense to me to have them separate.

[@szlanty]

I'm a youtuber. Pewdiepie is a youtuber. therefore, I'm Pewdiepie

[@AASAP447]

I don't think it works that way. You're using a singular noun.

[@szlanty]

Henree Garcia ylecsactly

[@aliyuh]

Random Mapper/Scratcher/Robloxian I think that's called the substitution property

[@szlanty]

Cookie Monster girl :)

[@leowang5867]

Random Mapper/Scratcher/Robloxian I am a human, Dr Richard Feynman is a human, therefore I am Richard Feynman? I don't think so.....

[@WrathOfMega]

Guys, he said 'Man is a rational animal' is sexist because when Plato said that he was actually explicitly excluding women.

[@DimetriKhan]

+WrathOfMega Don't bother. These people are strangely adverse to anything of this nature.

[@Atypical-Abbie]

+WrathOfMega I was gonna comment stating how he may not have meant it that way, but I'm glad someone actually did their research on this. Also, it was a different time anyway.

[@Shangori]

Plato.. mgtow-ing since 424 BC Did he really? Interesting. I was wondering why hank would say something like that, knowing that this is the internet. Have a feeling he did it on purpose. If so, kuddos. And that says an egalitarian.

[@TheMrWreckz]

+WrathOfMega Thank you, Hank made this pretty clear, dont see how people messed it up.

[@Atypical-Abbie]

Mr Barwick He did? I don't see how, care to enlighten me?

[@levi2234]

some arguments are not hard to win but for the other person to give up their pride for a moment is apparently the hardest thing ever

[@sketchygetchey8299]

Boy makes a logical argument; gets grounded for arguing with siblings

[@teckyify]

I like this series, it finally shows esoteric crazies that philosophy is not bla bla but its opposite.

[@SomethingSeemsOff]

+AktionJackson i just dont like meta physics. give me some scientific reasoning

[@teckyify]

+Something Seems Off Do you know what metaphysics exactly is? It's not astrology, it's logical reasoning about the most general foundations about "everything", see: plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ If you like reasoning it's one of the most technical and hard fields of philosophy.

[@shakilrafi7964]

+AktionJackson More of an epistemology person myself, I feel like epistemology is the most "out there" branch of philosophy

[@NicDude583]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN HANK GREEN ISN'T A CAT?!!! I feel like I've been lied to...

[@mythics102]

"Tripartite soul" sounds like a term for a 3-part-horcrux.

[@TaunellE]

Lmao! 😂❤

[@lolhi7652]

Lol😄

[@FELONIOUSBOLUSS]

Called it, two episodes in and we already have a controversy, even if it is a small one.

[@LittleLion93]

+Alpaca Man Tha't a good thing, it means that we are albe to think! Well... kinda of....

[@coolbadboy786]

+LittleLion93 its all about rationally thinking... just thinking is so last year

[@unixone7558]

+Alpaca Man If one cannot handle conflict and controversy, one should not be on the Internet.

[@sejrefraincisa4276]

+Alpaca Man What controversy? I didn't see anything that could offend anyone.

[@AnstonMusic]

+Sejref Raincisa I think he refers to the barber, which I and many others here think that because the rules are contradictory, they cannot be followed either way. Edit: I'm wrong, it was about Hank saying Plato was sexist because he said that man is a rational animal.

[@almohsen12]

this video is about philosophy i watched this video i'm now a philosopher :D

[@lcmiracle]

+flat moe  Your first premise should be: Watching a video about philosophy makes the watcher a Philosopher. Your second premise should be: you watched a video about philosophy Thus your conclusion can be that you are now a philosopher Then it'd be a valid argument.

[@Grayhome]

+lcmiracle But not necessarily a sound one! Watching a video about philosophy can make the watcher a philosopher. You watched a video about philosophy. You can be a philosopher.

[@almohsen12]

lcmiracle lol im irrational , so your argument about my argument being fault isn't right to me either -Trump (i guess that's what he tells himself every morning in the mirror )

[@TheOtherNeutrino]

+Tyler Graham Look at that. The series is already paying off.

[@RunxDevil]

+flat moe You have always been a philosopher. You are the chosen one.

[@jackattack2098]

I do state level congressional debate in California, and this is such a helpful video that I think will help the kids that are new to debate.

[@h.b.1315]

My eyes and mind were fighting so hard to glaze over during the barber explanation.

[@dmartin1650]

In my experience, persuasiveness is often more to do with social skills than rational argument. Humans often act irrationally, especialy when challenged.

[@noahbusbee1907]

I think I am pretty gifted at philosophy and arguing. I just now a sophomore in high school, and when I was a freshman, I went to State for Youth and Government, and I was one of the top nine and the only freshman in the state to go to State. I was a lone speaker, and my proposal got passed with an overwhelming majority, even though there was help, I did a bunch of it myself. Philosophy and arguing and debate are strong skills and extreme interests of mine. Thanks CC!

[@colza1025]

I appreciate so much that crash course brings us these brilliant videos. I also think that it's going to be a benefit for the world if we make philosophy as a required study.

[@williamspringer9447]

Kun Yu Tsai ••••• He left out some pretty important ingredients from the recipe . He never explains that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence. He never mentioned that the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@medjed2511]

Saiyans have a tail Goku is a saiyan Goku has a tail

[@GlitchLich589]

Most of the Saiyans in the anime get their tails removed, but on some occasions, they grow back

[@dkatomski]

Kevin He had one.

[@freeman8508]

You got this straight from a google search lol

[@justinlacek1481]

Premise one requires an existential quantifier. Some saiyans have tails. Or, you could state that All saiyans are born with tails, Goku is a saiyan, thefore goku was born with a tail.

[@niceguy9061]

Transitive property, we all learn it one way or another.

[@jadedshinobi7904]

you can never lose an argument if you say "ok boomer"

[@saocxdc210]

You must have forgot the most effective countermeasure to ok boomer: " This meme is already nothing but a memory" - Patrick Harlan

[@tty8526]

ok boomer

[@renj123]

I think this episode was awesome. And I also think you're going into the right places. I retract my previous (rather unfair) criticism of episode 1. I'm still interested to see where this heads.

[@YOUAPIGEON]

This should be one of the videos in the KZbin creator academy

[@matthewflynn9564]

These gentlemen do an amazing job of making these ideas digestible. Gratitude, to the Greens and their staff. Bravo!

[@williamspringer9447]

Matthew Flynn ••• And they still manage to suppress the most important element of logical reasoning . Brilliant .

[@tonksindiguise6883]

Hank is an amazing teacher.

[@lachlanbrowse6939]

0:12 Actually Ancient Greek used the words Man and Human the other way round, as in Man was the species and Human and Women were the two sexes

[@xinthebox]

Tripartite soul split in 3 Rational logical - seek truth and swayed by facts and arguments Spirited/ emotional - how feelings fuel your actions Appetitive/ physical desires - drives you to eat have sex and protect yourself An argument Your beliefs should always be backed up by reasons which are called premises Premises - support the structure Premises form the structure of your argument. They offer evidence for your belief, and you can have as many premises as you like, as long as they support your conclusion, which is the thing that you actually believe. Deductive - if your premises are true then your conclusion must be true Premise 1 all humans are mortal Premise 2 Socrates is a human Conclusion : Socrates is mortal Entailment - one fact leads to another. Begins with the general then reasons down to the specific. The truth of the premise must lead to the truth of the conclusion when this happens then the argument is valid no way the conclusion can be false when the premise are true . Validity is not the same as the truth. Validity= if the premises are true then your conclusion can't be false If your premises don't guarantee the truth of your conclusion then you can end up in a stupid argument Deductive soundness Validity + all true premises

[@Weelum2001]

"How to argue properly" -Ben Shapiro has left the chat

[@LaLaBlahBlahh]

William Woodward i don’t agree with everything he says but i honestly think he’s one of the few people who are capable of formulating a logical argument and delivering it well, without emotional reactivity (with the exception of that BBC interview). same as jordan peterson... but hey! it’s cool to have different views

[@truthhurts1936]

@@LaLaBlahBlahh he uses flawed reasoning all the time and his fast speech doesnt help others either. same as jordan peterson.I used to like him a lot until that debate with zizek.He was shown he doesnt know much outside his main field(psychology)

[@williamspringer9447]

reallymagnolia To argue properly is to use the art of rhetoric to persuade your audience . This is only done logically if all of the reliable evidence is on your side and your audience will not positively respond to the judicial use of logical fallacies .

[@jthb]

3:08 I feel like being fully rational would lead to being cynical Acting on emotionan would be irrational

[@jackmckee6781]

Hey its the sci show guy! This guy is great, I love the emphasis and hand gestures he uses when articulating the finer points of the lesson. I'm always glad to see a video with him in it. Thus I have now subscribed.

[@RespectYourViews]

when it comes to logic, emotion, and fallcy within arguments my perspective is there are 4 types of arguments. 1)logical and persuasive 2)logical but not persuasive 3) illogical and not persuasive 4)illogical but persuasive It is a bit of a trap that smart/philosophical people get into, to consider a logical argument as necessarily good and an illogical one to be bad. If an argument full of fallacies is more persuasive than one with flawless logic, then the the fallacious argument is better.

[@williamspringer9447]

RespectYourViews ••• To a person properly educated in the science of logic , an illogical argument should not be persuasive . To a average person , uneducated in the science of logic, authority and popular opinion are everything . That's why the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@MarieKe2312]

The first time hank said "plato" I understood "play-doh" 😂

[@affordablecareactof]

Mk

[@mrmcbeardy9268]

I think I just found the best channel on KZbin..? Mate, your videos are amazing. It's so reassuring (and faith restoring) to see folk like yourself sharing philosophy and inspiring others to embrace it more actively in daily life. Probably one of the single most vital tools for the development of both self and society. Namaste 😊🙏

[@williamspringer9447]

Mr McBeardy •••• The science of logic is a mystery to the masses . How can that be in a free society ? Why did this guy not explain the first law of logical reasoning ?

[@mrmcbeardy9268]

@@williamspringer9447 if you are referring to Aristotle's first law of "Identity", I can see how that could be a good point to make in today's world where many people will believe a conspiracy before doing any research to find the truth. Sure, i can see your point, and i agree to a point, it may have been a point worth touching on, even if briefly. (Perhaps he did, as it was 11 months ago that i watched this, so i can't say i recall whether or not this was touched on, even if briefly). With the point of the "law of truth" in mind, I present these two following observations. 1, Just because one may not broach the subject of "identitifying the difference between truth or non-truth", it doesnt mean all the other information is moot or discounted, because in truth, all the other information is still apt and applicable to the teachings of logical reasoning. And 2, that is a question you should be asking the content creator. As I am not them, i cannot claim to know their throughts or reasons in order to answer your query (although i am certain it was rhetorical). Perhaps they thought that in a world where people vote, drive mutli-tonne weapons around, raise children, and work jobs to pay bills, that a concept like discerning "what is truth" should be a rather self-explanatory process to even the more cerebrally challenged, and therefore determined the time was better spent on highlighting other principles that may be less conspicuous to those just discovering deductive reasoning? But I digress, this is but a reasoned speculation, as i cannot claim to know the authors mind. 🤔🤷‍♂️😊

[@mrmcbeardy9268]

@@williamspringer9447 but indeed, i do sympathize with your statement/observation... it can 'seem' like logic is often missing in the many in this day and age. Be careful with blanket statements though, as to throw the rest of humanity in with the illogical folk, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To begin a process of automatically discounting the entire population of their potential and ability, only serves longterm to negatively impact on your own personal opinion and view of the world... Which, in turn, would be an illogical way to think yourself, as blanket statements cannot accurately portray the truth of humanity. For your point to be proven true (about the masses not having logic), we would have to question and explore the answers of every individual on earth, and then count the difference between those of logical vs illogical thought processes. So even your original statement wouldnt pass Aristotles first law of Truth, rendering your statement to the level of congecture and anecdote. However, with this in mind, I would agree to an extent, that in todays world, it can SEEM that when humans are in larger groups, they tend to follow hive-mind mentality, and at such point logic and reasoning can seemingly be rather absent or hard to find. But many of those people on their own, may think more logically. Hive mind mentality is a real problem with humans, and can potentially cause more problems than it ever solves... (depending on who the hive is subconsciously following). A solution to this, would be to teach children about logic and reasoning (and conscious thought in general) at an early age in school. Of course, one major symptom of todays world is a higher prevalence of narcissism, and kids being raised in narcissitic environments will rarely be shown reasoning by their narsiccistic family members... which may or may not help reinforce whatever the kids learn about reason, as that itself will come down to the individual kids innate intelligence and who they look too for guidance and role-modelling.

[@mrmcbeardy9268]

@@williamspringer9447 also, if you're into healthy reasoning and logic,,you would love some of Jordan Petersons talks ;) arguably one of the best psychologists of todays world. But you may have already gotten there :) Be well and happy. Namaste 😊

[@williamspringer9447]

Mr McBeardy ••••• What an excellent response ! Thank you. Now, for the two points I wish to make : (1) There is overwhelming evidence that the science of Logic is not taught in our State controlled public schools. The near universal ignorance of the subject by U.S. high school graduates makes this perfectly obvious. Historian John Gatto argues in his book "The Underground History of American Education" that the suppression of the teaching of the science of Logic in our schools has been going on for over a century . • ••• (2) I think it is easy defend the proposition that the first law of logic is that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence . This becomes apparent when you realize that the human mind does not readily accept invalid arguments as properly reasoned , but they continuously accept false or questionable premises as true . •••• Here s little information about Logic that I have found useful . ••••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• 'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.' -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••••••••• 'The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.' -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing •••••••••• 'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.' -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••••••••• 'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.' -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

[@MrTomservo85]

Premise: Everything that was created has a creator. Premise 2: The universe was created. Conclusion: Jesus was born from a virgin and doesn't want you to masturbate ever. Checkmate atheists.

[@gda295]

your first premise is actually true.

[@ronmurp]

Nice one. Classic theology. :)

[@erikbarrett85]

not if energy crates itself?

[@gda295]

mmm, something flying overhead. pantheism? dont forget "unmoved mover " of aristotle...closest I can come to energy as an "entity"....I need another 2 years then ill get back to you in all honesty : D

[@Fearofthemonster]

your p1 sounds true. explanation: p1 Everything that was created must have been created p2 A creator is needed to create c: Everything that was created has a creator.

[@GJxPaladin]

"Philosophers continue to agree with Plato: that reason should be in the driver seat" Q: This mostly applies to Western Philosophy, which, as opposed to many Asian teachings, distinguishes between affairs of the heart and affairs of the (rational) mind. So, will we be getting some Eastern philosophy in this series? Because the way of thinking is very different, making a lot of it extremely interesting

[@williamspringer9447]

Jon •••• I'd be more impressed if this guy explained the first law of the science of Logic to his audience.

[@Mrules123]

The little turtles all the way down (or up 😂) joke in the title animation was really lovely & a nice little detail!

[@luxtenax9175]

So, is Hank a furry now??

[@polygondon]

+Adrian Fahrenheit No, cats are mammals, so Hank is a cat.

[@Argacyan]

+Adrian Fahrenheit ONE OF US! ONE OF US!

[@cedrickulacz8468]

well, he IS a brony. not a big lead from there. XD

[@Megabean]

+Adrian Fahrenheit yay

[@LittleLion93]

+Adrian Fahrenheit First thing that I thought!

[@SALSN]

0:10 isn't it normal to think that "man" in that context means the human race? I'm no linguist but I've always thought that it was just an old fashion way of speaking, rather than implying anything about the sexes?

[@mytparty]

+Simon Als Nielsen It is now, but at that time it was used to refer to male humans. As in, that quote was likely meant to exclude anyone who wasn't a guy.

[@adamkhan9899]

on the contrary, I've always thought that 'man' being considered a synonym for 'human' is emblematic of the depths of patriarchy.

[@SALSN]

Adam Khan Holy crap, if that is enough to keep someone down, then it is probably better to shield them from the real world, man is literally just the last part of the word human.

[@DreamxWonderland]

this is only in english,that's why he specified it,it doesn't have the same meaning as in greek,where men=members of the male gender

[@SALSN]

Silvia Elena Oh, didn't think of that aspect, good point.

[@tessellation7852]

"we don't have to be sexist just because he was" Hank has just fixed philosophy and religion in one line.

[@AlphaBetaDeltaGamma]

that little compass thingy keeps shaking when Hank talks and it is incredibly distracting

[@luxtenax9175]

+Max Fux Now I can't unsee it

[@fernandobernardo6324]

All nice and dandy until you have to argue with your wife.

[@ronaazira1373]

tomorrow is my midterm test on philosophy and gladly i found this channel. thank you🙏🏻

[@williamspringer9447]

Rona Azira •••• Have you ever wondered why the science of Logic isn't taught in our State controlled public schools? Are you aware that this video didn't even explain the first law of the science of Logic?

[@MultiSciGeek]

I really like how Hank presents this from neutral perspective. Thanks, I wish more people would use this method.

[@mikei6605]

is his brother really John Green!?

[@stargirl7769]

MioKay yes

[@cybervoid8442]

check out vlogbrothers

[@bigdog7632]

Yep, You go bud

[@princeranenlee7331]

OF COURSE!!

[@princeranenlee7331]

DDDUUUUUUUHH

[@dennisgahm]

47 videos in this playlist - wow! This is an awesome resource.

[@Araanor]

couldn't man mean human or did he actually mean male human ?

[@wJMexp]

+Araanor male

[@TheDiamond728]

+Araanor At that point "Man" could mean either, but I believe he meant Man as in human.

[@ireallyhatemakingupnamesfo1758]

Most likely man=male

[@Araanor]

+Pan kurczak yea it's sad.

[@ubume]

+Araanor Presumably he meant human, since he didn't show evidence of a difference between men e women. Also analyze his use of pronouns and say it imply sexism with our morality is stupid.

[@jimmyjam3454]

This was great! I started this "open-minded" talk show and knowing how to persuade better is always helpful! Thanks CC!!

[@williamspringer9447]

JimmyJam ••• It would have been better if he had explained that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence. And better still if he explained why the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@shaythegay]

I can't believe I found a course on philosophy which is THIS good.

[@andresvrojas7]

I watch the series that help deal with my anger disorder, better argument equals less opportune moments for me to lose my temper.

[@williamspringer9447]

clever name •••• Bruce Banner. You should learn the first law of the science of logic. I think that would help .

[@jonathanwilkinson4299]

So using the word man when referring to humanity is sexiest now?!

[@tiedeman39]

I'm pretty sure it was a joke m8

[@jonathanwilkinson4299]

+Fred Skiddles Are you sure? These guys are pretty PC.

[@principetnomusic]

+Jonathan Wilkinson They are PC but they like to mock themselves about that, so... go figure.

[@justadude4938]

+Jonathan Wilkinson Yes, it leaves out women. It's not a huge issue, but it's insulting to at least some women.

[@elijah9822]

+Jonathan Wilkinson Let's check his privilege!

[@angelaguasti9040]

Thank you for all the effort and the hard work you put into making all of your videos!

[@williamspringer9447]

Angela Guasti•••• I wonder when he's going to tell us that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence?

[@DeathDefiant]

''An argument in philosophy isn't a shouting match'' My parents are shouting at each other lol

[@pqxh]

"Deductive truths are usually pretty obvious. They don't tend to lead us to startling new information" I guess Hank's not too familiar with mathematics...^_^ A mathematician or a philosopher of math would have quite a bone to pick with that statement!

[@justinlacek1481]

Kurt Godel most definitely

[@williamspringer9447]

pqxh •••• This guy was brilliant ! Hes got everyone eating out of his hand, and he never even taught them the first law of the science of logic

[@paraic9163]

"a group must always be a member of itself" hard to wrap my head around that. I wish it was explained more deeply.

[@deathBLADE786]

It's basically saying that a person who creates a rule must include themselves in that rule otherwise it's paradoxical.

[@paraic9163]

@@deathBLADE786 I see, the words they use don't seem to connect to what you said at all ha not saying you're wrong, just saying it's weird wording. Also, isnt including the barber in the group.. what creates the paradox?

[@paraic9163]

@@deathBLADE786 I also dont understand why this is true in general? If a mother makes a rule for her children that they cant watch horror movies, does that mean it's a paradox if she allows herself to?

[@deathBLADE786]

Paraic Garry I was just trying to word it in a way that made more sense. The point behind this is that if one of the premises behind a conclusion is false then the conclusion cant exist as it is a logical impossibility the barber in this case behind the impossibility.

[@joshjoshson9485]

You won't because that is a mistake in understanding on their part. They have it backwards. The argument they present is a more metaphorical, common sense explanation of an actually more formal argument normally expressed in symbolic logic whose point is to show that one particular set (the set of all sets that can't be a member of itself) must be and a member of itself and therefore must not be a member of itself. This is an unresolvable paradox. The point is that trying to explain all descriptions using set theory fails because it leads to this paradox. It's hard to make sense of this without an understanding of the history of metaphorical philosophy and I wish they'd correct this video.

[@moyga]

Even though Aristotle did believe women are less rational than men, I wouldn't call him sexist because at the time, that was widely accepted as an empirical fact. I think that if something is true, it can't be racist or sexist. For example, if it was true that black people on average can run faster than white people, then stating that _"black people can run faster on average than white people"_would not be racist, it would be stating a fact. Aristotle lived in a time where it was widely believed that women were less rational then men, so from his point of view he was just stating what he thought was a fact, he did not believe it out of malice for women, for that reason his views about women don't really show something that malicious or bad about him as a person to me. It's easy to criticize people from the past based on what we know now. For most of human history slavery was accepted.

[@calvinhigdon5602]

But it depends on your definition of sexism. I would say that discrimination based on sex IS sexism, and so even saying that men are more rational than women is sexist. That’s a discrimination, a difference in recognition or treatment, that is different between men and women. And so I would make the argument that it is still sexist. Sexism isn’t defined by deviation from the societal norm. Some things are just inherently and definitively sexist. The question you seem to be answering is “Should Aristotle be considered a bad person for his sexist remark?” To which the answer is no, for the reasons you presented.

[@primordialking5444]

Yet it's not sexist because outlining any biological difference would then be considered sexist.

[@patrickburnett947]

It is sexist by definition to believe women are less rational than men since sexism understood as devaluation or discrimination based on one's sex. Just because sexism was the norm doesn't mean it didn't exist. Aristotle's ideas are extremely important in terms of being a foundation for knowledge and providing a basis for discourse in numerous fields. It is not wrong or a devaluation of his ideas to acknowledge that his views towards women were toxic and contradictory to a rational and open mind. Providing Aristotle's ideas with a note about the shortcomings they presented is the responsible thing to do and furthermore encourages the young audience members to think beyond the social roles we held to be binding some 2400 years ago.

[@AEther0238]

Before the 17th century, the term "Man," meant human. Women and men alike. So when... Aristotle, was it? When Aristotle said "Man is the rational animal," he wasn't being sexist. I'm not saying he wasn't sexist, I'm just saying that sentence isn't evidence for or against it.

[@armstrong2052]

Exactly and calling him one is implying that he wouldn't change his opinion to the times too. Which is bigoted. But I'm not implying that lol

[@willshaper4695]

So the language was sexist

[@wronglayerbutok]

It was a joke, but also a statement to ensure people who might squint at the potential sexist remarks crash course could hypothetically be supporting, that they aren't sexist themself. It wouldn't be ridiculous to assume he was sexist though, you'd be in the minority if you wanted equal rights for women back then. Sexism has been the norm for too long. That statement may or may not be sexist.

[@hereandnow990]

what does the term "sexist" mean? That there is a difference between male and female sexes or that one is higher than the other?

[@bullrun2772]

Not really

[@erilassila409]

I knew how to argue when I was twelve. I got my dad liking the same band I do,and I got my parents (and myself with them) to quit being members of the state church here in Finland. Later I got several of my friends into playing the ukulele and loving Axis of Awesome.

[@Sky_Sovereign]

Everyone: Deductive Soundness My friend: Cake is bread. I eat bread. Therefore, I eat cake.

[@shirogami4224]

2:35 "it gives you a sense of honor and a doody"

[@maryamradwan1786]

The only channel on youtube where I don't have to speed up the vids

[@atheistnon-stampcollector6877]

1. In the Past we Used God to explain the wonders of the universe. 2. Before we had science, we thought that God made things like crystals, and we even thought they were actually solid. 3.However, Science has taught us, against all intuition, that apparently solid things like crystals and rocks are really almost entirely composed of empty space. And the familiar illustration is the nucleus of an atom is a fly in the middle of a sports stadium, and the next atom is in the next sports stadium. 4 Because of Science, We know more each day about the world than we knew the day before. Therefore 5 God almost certainly does not exist

[@oneslayed71]

Your reason is invalid, because number one, you did not recognize the context behind the Bible, number two, you take it from the assumptions from people who tried to explain the world using God as a trump card, number three, if you recognize the idea if God created the process of making crystals, than what you say is definitely wrong.

[@atheistnon-stampcollector6877]

@@oneslayed71 Its satire. You are right. Its invalid. Logically invalid! It has the form of 1. A 2. B 3.C 4. D therefore 5 E! I took a bunch random Dawkins quotes, rephrased them slightly and slapped a totally unrelated conclusion on them. Looks like 3 people were dumb enough to up vote it. Anti Poe!

[@samlund8543]

1 year anniversary! Too bad this series is over now...

[@skytstrax]

Nice video! One point about Plato and the tripartite soul, though. As I understand it, Plato does not hold that the best human beings are ruled by the rational part. Rather, what makes the best humans is those in which the three are always in agreement. The best humans will thus never experience inner conflicts of the type "should I eat lots of bacon even though it's unhealthy", because the appetitive part of his soul is in agreement with the rational.

[@kstephenson5857]

How does the quote "man is the rational animal" equate to sexism? Green, you know as well as I do that Man, especially in ancient times, was used to encompass the entire human race, and not just males. That's why another title for our species, as Tolkien wrote, is "the race of Man"

[@sickal2365]

Aristotle was actually sexist although the phrase is not.

[@Everyyoueverymiau]

KStephenson Weren't women like no real citizens and not allowed to vote in their time?

[@TitusM7]

because of the "man" in there ... feminists are now changing "woman" because it contains "man" in it ... that's idiocy at its finest

[@rtybn456]

KStephenson my philosphy teacher (whose a man) said that he was sexist though, like every other man in ancient greece (besides socrates lol). women weren't equal to men back then : men thought they were stupid and emotional, not able to make any political decision etc etc so... you were wrong

[@sophiekl340]

KStephenson please read Plato.

[@Argacyan]

7:36 And this is why I hate people who make the case that human races would exist, that black people would be inherently violent and so on: Some of their premises are not wrong, but they draw a conclusion that, while perhaps being valid if just looking at those premises that are correct, is not true - however, they don't know the difference between "valid" and true, and they refuse to acknowledge anything you might tell them. They're a people that I thus far have to see being able to be convinced by facts and solid argumentation...

[@williamspringer9447]

Argacyan •••• There are deductively sound and inductively cogent arguments that are very ugly . We can choose to not believe them of course . That's made easier by the fact that the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@anttitenhunen4725]

I like the structure and the presentation itself, it seems well argued as supposed. However, you could slow down just a little so that there is more time to digest all the data you are bringing us. This would make the presentation more convincing and composed.

[@raspberrybomb8421]

Humans do have tails! The bone at least its tucked in under back tissue and leads of the spine.

[@dimitri929]

Doesn't "man" refer to humans as well as men? As in mankind?

[@JulianBlair-d6d]

It's interesting that plato divided the soul into the ego,superego and id thousands of years before freud divided the mind into them

[@jokingcarl_]

I thought you were john. until you mentioned john having a tail, I realized that you're hank.

[@N_no1r]

When u realized this episode just talking how to write an essay

[@Student-gi4lb]

Philosophical reason was indeed reasonable. I bet after this lesson, I am able to argue correctly and rationally.

[@HelenaChaudin]

Oh, Aristotle was most definitely sexist when he said that man is rational. Sexism is pretty much a major part of his philosophy.

[@tiedeman39]

I'm pretty sure it was a joke

[@HelenaChaudin]

+Fred Skiddles I'm pretty sure he's referring to Aristotle's idea that women possess less rational abilities than men, thus making them less human.

[@Rififi50]

+Elena S. The statement "Man is rational" is by no means sexist by itself. That is true even if you only consider man to mean male humans instead of the more conventional meaning of mankind, since in that case it gives no information about female humans. They may be seen as rational too or not - it is impossible to tell which it is given only the statement. But of course he was certainly sexist, which comes at no surprise considering he lived in a literal patriarchy. It is just that the statement really played no role in that.

[@dansattah]

I think, that the problem with ancient philosophers, when reciting them in the present (our present), is, that you have to make sure to know the right context for them. Because otherwise all of their work, even the helpful one, becomes discredited.

[@joshn2564]

+Elena S. Humans have genders. Genders are sexually dimorphous. Thus all men & women are different.