Dangers: Logical Fallacies

⸺

  • “Appeal to Emotion: Invoking emotions like fear, guilt, or pity to sway opinions without addressing the logical merits of the argument.” – This defines a specific type of logical fallacy, highlighting its method and purpose.
  • “Circular reasoning: Assuming the conclusion you’re trying to prove in your premises.” – Another specific fallacy is defined, providing a clear and concise explanation.
  • “Remember, identifying and avoiding these fallacies is crucial for fostering productive philosophical discussions based on sound reasoning and evidence-based arguments.” – This emphasizes the importance of avoiding fallacies for productive and well-reasoned discussions.
  • “These examples highlight how logical fallacies have been employed across different periods and debates in history, affecting the direction and outcomes of public discourse.” – This quote demonstrates the historical significance of recognizing and understanding logical fallacies.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. List the 20 most common logical fallacies seen in philosophical discussions.
  2. Provide 5 examples of actual logical fallacies found in historical public debates.
    1. 1. Appeal to Authority in the Scopes Trial (1925)
    2. 2. Slippery Slope in the Debate on Women’s Suffrage
    3. 3. Straw Man in the McCarthy Era (1950s)
    4. 4. Ad Hominem in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1858)
    5. 5. False Dilemma in the Debate Over the League of Nations (1919-1920)
    6. 5 Examples of Logical Fallacies in Historical Public Debates:
  3. Provide a 15-item quiz on common logical fallacies with answers at the end.
    1. Quiz: Identify the Logical Fallacy
    2. Answers
    3. Fallacy Frenzy: Test Your Logical Reasoning!
  4. Provide 15 discussion questions related to logical fallacies in the context of philosophical discussions.
    1. 15 Discussion Questions on Logical Fallacies in Philosophy:

List the 20 most common logical fallacies seen in philosophical discussions.

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. They are commonly encountered in philosophical discussions, debates, and various forms of argumentation. Here are the 20 most common logical fallacies seen in philosophical and other intellectual discussions:

  1. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
  2. Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
  3. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.
  4. False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): Presenting two opposing options as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
  5. Slippery Slope: Asserting that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, without sufficient evidence for such a chain.
  6. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): The reasoner begins with what they are trying to end up with; the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
  7. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): Asserting that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and ignoring evidence to the contrary.
  8. Hasty Generalization: Making a generalized conclusion based on a small and possibly unrepresentative sample.
  9. Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant material to the argument to distract and lead towards a different conclusion.
  10. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This): Assuming that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it.
  11. Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
  12. Bandwagon Fallacy (Argumentum ad Populum): Arguing something is true because it is widely held or popular belief.
  13. False Cause: Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
  14. Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem): Asserting that something is right or acceptable because it has always been done or believed.
  15. No True Scotsman: Making an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
  16. Equivocation: Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
  17. Loaded Question: Asking a question that contains an assumption within it, so that the respondent cannot answer it without appearing guilty.
  18. Tu Quoque (You Too): Dismissing someone’s viewpoint on an issue because they themselves are inconsistent in that very thing.
  19. Personal Incredulity: Asserting that because something is difficult to understand, or you cannot personally believe it, it must not be true.
  20. Guilt by Association: Discrediting an argument for proposing an idea which is shared by some socially undesirable group or person.

Understanding these fallacies is crucial for critical thinking and effective argumentation, allowing individuals to identify flawed reasoning in their own and others’ arguments, thereby fostering clearer and more robust discussions.

Defining the “20 most common” logical fallacies can be subjective, as prevalence varies depending on specific philosophical debates and individual styles. However, some fallacies repeatedly crop up in discussions, hindering productive dialogue and clear reasoning. Here are 20 common logical fallacies encountered in philosophical discourse:

Appeal to:

  1. Emotion: Invoking emotions like fear, guilt, or pity to sway opinions without addressing the logical merits of the argument.
  2. Tradition: Assuming something is true because it has been believed for a long time or by many people.
  3. Authority: Using someone’s position or expertise to validate an argument without providing supporting evidence.
  4. Popularity: Assuming something is true because many people believe it, ignoring potential biases or lack of evidence.
  5. Probability: Making broad generalizations based on isolated or insufficient evidence.

False Dichotomy:

  1. Presenting only two options when more exist, forcing a false choice between extremes.

Informal Fallacies:

  1. Ad hominem attack: Attacking the person making the argument instead of their ideas.
  2. Strawman argument: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
  3. Red herring: Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main issue.
  4. Circular reasoning: Assuming the conclusion you’re trying to prove in your premises.
  5. Slippery slope: Arguing that accepting one premise will inevitably lead to a series of undesirable consequences, often exaggerated or unfounded.
  6. Post hoc fallacy: Assuming that because event B followed event A, event A caused event B.
  7. Begging the question: Phrasing the argument in a way that assumes the conclusion is already true.

Formal Fallacies:

  1. Affirming the consequent: Assuming that if the consequence of a statement is true, then the statement itself must be true.
  2. Denying the antecedent: Assuming that if the antecedent of a statement is false, then the statement itself must be false.

Other Fallacies:

  1. Equivocation: Switching the meaning of words or phrases throughout an argument.
  2. Composition/Division Fallacy: Assuming what is true for the parts is true for the whole or vice versa.
  3. Genetic fallacy: Attacking an argument based on its origin or the person who made it.
  4. Tu quoque: Responding to an argument with an accusation of hypocrisy, regardless of the argument’s validity.
  5. False analogy: Comparing two things that are not really similar, leading to flawed conclusions.

Remember, identifying and avoiding these fallacies is crucial for fostering productive philosophical discussions based on sound reasoning and evidence-based arguments.

Provide 5 examples of actual logical fallacies found in historical public debates.

Examining historical public debates reveals a rich tapestry of rhetoric, persuasion, and, at times, the use of logical fallacies. Below are five examples of actual logical fallacies found in historical public debates, showcasing the diverse contexts in which these errors in reasoning have occurred:

1. Appeal to Authority in the Scopes Trial (1925)

Example: During the Scopes Trial, also known as the “Monkey Trial,” which debated the legality of teaching evolution in schools, proponents of creationism frequently invoked the Bible as the ultimate authority on scientific matters, suggesting that if something is stated in the Bible, it must be scientifically accurate.

Explanation: This is an appeal to authority fallacy because it relies on a religious text as the primary source of scientific authority, without addressing the scientific evidence for evolution directly.

2. Slippery Slope in the Debate on Women’s Suffrage

Example: Opponents of women’s suffrage in the early 20th century often argued that giving women the right to vote would lead to the breakdown of the family unit and societal decay.

Explanation: This argument is a slippery slope fallacy because it assumes that granting women the right to vote would inevitably lead to extreme negative consequences without providing evidence for such a drastic chain of events.

3. Straw Man in the McCarthy Era (1950s)

Example: During the McCarthy era, Senator Joseph McCarthy and his supporters often accused individuals of being communists or sympathizers of communism if they expressed dissenting views or criticized McCarthy’s tactics.

Explanation: This constitutes a straw man fallacy because McCarthy misrepresented the positions of his critics as being pro-communist, which made it easier to attack them, rather than addressing their actual criticisms.

4. Ad Hominem in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1858)

Example: In the series of debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, Douglas frequently attacked Lincoln’s character, suggesting that Lincoln was a dangerous radical who threatened the fabric of the nation.

Explanation: This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy because Douglas attacked Lincoln’s character instead of engaging directly with his arguments about slavery and the future of the United States.

5. False Dilemma in the Debate Over the League of Nations (1919-1920)

Example: During the debate over whether the United States should join the League of Nations, some supporters argued that the only alternative to joining was a future of perpetual warfare and isolation.

Explanation: This argument represents a false dilemma fallacy because it presents the choice as between only two extremes—joining the League of Nations or facing constant war and isolation—without considering other foreign policy options or nuances.

These examples highlight how logical fallacies have been employed across different periods and debates in history, affecting the direction and outcomes of public discourse. Recognizing these fallacies can help us critically evaluate arguments and foster more reasoned and substantive discussions.

5 Examples of Logical Fallacies in Historical Public Debates:

  1. Appeal to Tradition: During the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925), proponents of teaching creationism in schools argued that it had been done for centuries, implying it was inherently correct. This ignores the progress of scientific knowledge and commits an appeal to tradition fallacy.
  2. Slippery Slope: In debates about gun control, some argue that any restrictions on gun ownership will inevitably lead to a complete ban, effectively stripping citizens of their rights. This exaggerates the potential consequences and relies on a slippery slope fallacy.
  3. Ad Hominem Attack: Throughout history, political debates have often devolved into personal attacks on the character or motives of opponents, focusing on flaws or past actions rather than addressing the arguments themselves. This constitutes an ad hominem fallacy.
  4. False Dichotomy: During the Cold War, the world was often portrayed as a simple binary choice between Communism and Capitalism, ignoring the complexity of various political and economic systems and committing a false dichotomy fallacy.
  5. Strawman Argument: In debates about affirmative action, opponents sometimes mischaracterize it as giving unfair advantages to specific groups, ignoring its historical context and intended goals. This misrepresents the argument and falls prey to a strawman fallacy.

These are just a few examples, and specific fallacies used vary depending on the historical context and topic of debate. Recognizing and analyzing these fallacies can help us evaluate arguments more critically and engage in more productive public discourse.

Provide a 15-item quiz on common logical fallacies with answers at the end.

Below is a 15-item quiz designed to test knowledge on common logical fallacies. Each question presents a scenario that illustrates a potential logical fallacy. Participants are asked to identify the fallacy from the options provided.

Quiz: Identify the Logical Fallacy

1. “You shouldn’t listen to Jerry’s argument on climate change because he drives a gas-guzzling truck.”
A. Straw Man
B. Ad Hominem
C. False Dilemma

2. “If we allow students to redo their assignments to improve their grades, next they’ll want to retake entire courses for a better GPA.”
A. Slippery Slope
B. Appeal to Tradition
C. Red Herring

3. “We’ve always celebrated our company’s anniversary by giving employees a day off. There’s no reason to change that now.”
A. Appeal to Authority
B. Appeal to Tradition
C. False Cause

4. “Either we ban all cars to reduce pollution, or our city will become uninhabitable.”
A. False Dilemma
B. Slippery Slope
C. Hasty Generalization

5. “My grandfather smoked his entire life and lived until 97, so smoking can’t be that bad for you.”
A. Anecdotal Evidence
B. Post Hoc
C. Appeal to Ignorance

6. “People have been seeing ghosts for centuries, so ghosts must exist.”
A. Appeal to the People (Ad Populum)
B. Appeal to Tradition
C. Appeal to Ignorance

7. “The senator must be correct in her arguments about healthcare policy because she has a medical degree.”
A. Appeal to Authority
B. Straw Man
C. Non Sequitur

8. “You say that investing in renewable energy is important, but you still take flights for your vacations.”
A. Tu Quoque
B. Red Herring
C. Slippery Slope

9. “Eating at fast-food restaurants is bad because it’s unhealthy.”
A. Begging the Question
B. False Cause
C. Equivocation

10. “How can you argue your point about poverty when there are so many wealthy people in the country?”
A. Red Herring
B. Straw Man
C. False Dilemma

11. “Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.”
A. Appeal to Ignorance
B. False Cause
C. Slippery Slope

12. “Letting your kids go out with friends late at night will lead to them getting into trouble, dropping out of school, and ruining their futures.”
A. Slippery Slope
B. Hasty Generalization
C. False Dilemma

13. “You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”
A. False Dilemma
B. Ad Hominem
C. Non Sequitur

14. “The idea of life on other planets is just too difficult to believe.”
A. Personal Incredulity
B. Appeal to Authority
C. Appeal to Tradition

15. “Of course, democracy is the best form of government; why else would it be the most common system in the world?”
A. Appeal to the People (Ad Populum)
B. Appeal to Tradition
C. False Cause

Answers

  1. B. Ad Hominem
  2. A. Slippery Slope
  3. B. Appeal to Tradition
  4. A. False Dilemma
  5. A. Anecdotal Evidence
  6. A. Appeal to the People (Ad Populum)
  7. A. Appeal to Authority
  8. A. Tu Quoque
  9. A. Begging the Question
  10. A. Red Herring
  11. A. Appeal to Ignorance
  12. A. Slippery Slope
  13. A. False Dilemma
  14. A. Personal Incredulity
  15. A. Appeal to the People (Ad Populum)

This quiz is designed to encourage critical thinking about how logical fallacies can subtly influence arguments and discussions, thereby enhancing awareness and understanding of these common errors in reasoning.

Fallacy Frenzy: Test Your Logical Reasoning!

Instructions: For each scenario, identify the main logical fallacy used in the argument. Choose the closest answer from the options provided.

  1. Politician A: “My opponent claims to support education, but they voted against funding new schools. Clearly, they don’t care about our children!” a) Appeal to emotion b) Ad hominem attack c) False dilemma d) Begging the question
  2. Scientist B: “Vaccines are safe and effective because millions of people have received them without any problems.” a) Appeal to popularity b) Post hoc fallacy c) Anecdotal evidence d) Affirming the consequent
  3. Celebrity C: “This organic shampoo is amazing! My hair has never been healthier, and it’s good for the environment too.” a) Bandwagon appeal b) False analogy c) Testimonial fallacy d) Slippery slope
  4. Talk show host D: “Either you support free speech or you’re a censor!” a) False dilemma b) Appeal to tradition c) Red herring d) Equivocation
  5. Student E: “I shouldn’t have to fail this test. Everyone else cheated, and the teacher didn’t notice!” a) Appeal to pity b) Tu quoque fallacy c) Whataboutism d) Composition fallacy
  6. Blogger F: “This study proves that video games cause violence. Look at all these violent criminals who played video games!” a) Hasty generalization b) Correlation vs. causation c) Ad hominem attack d) Circular reasoning
  7. Politician G: “We need to cut taxes for the rich. After all, they create jobs for everyone else.” a) Appeal to authority b) Post hoc fallacy c) Slippery slope d) Trickle-down fallacy
  8. Social media influencer H: “Everyone is using this new fitness app, and they all love it! You should too!” a) Bandwagon appeal b) Appeal to emotion c) False analogy d) Testimonial fallacy
  9. Conspiracy theorist I: “They’re hiding the truth from us! If it wasn’t true, why wouldn’t they want everyone to know?” a) Appeal to ignorance b) Burden of proof fallacy c) Argument from silence d) Red herring
  10. Debater J: “My opponent’s plan is clearly flawed. They haven’t even addressed the main issue!”

a) Red herring b) Strawman argument c) Ad hominem attack d) Begging the question

Answer Key:

  1. b) Ad hominem attack
  2. c) Anecdotal evidence
  3. c) Testimonial fallacy
  4. a) False dilemma
  5. b) Tu quoque fallacy
  6. a) Hasty generalization
  7. d) Trickle-down fallacy
  8. a) Bandwagon appeal
  9. b) Burden of proof fallacy
  10. b) Strawman argument

Bonus Round: Can you identify the fallacy in this statement: “This quiz is impossible! If you were truly intelligent, you would have made it easier.”

…It’s an ad hominem attack with a hint of begging the question!

Provide 15 discussion questions related to logical fallacies in the context of philosophical discussions.

Creating discussion questions about logical fallacies within philosophical discussions encourages critical thinking and deeper understanding of how these fallacies can impact the quality and direction of philosophical inquiry. Here are 15 questions designed to stimulate thought and conversation on this topic:

  1. How do logical fallacies undermine the integrity of philosophical arguments?
  2. Can you identify an instance in a famous philosophical text where a logical fallacy is present? What impact does this have on the argument?
  3. Why might philosophers still employ logical fallacies in their arguments? Are there ever justifiable reasons for doing so?
  4. Discuss the relationship between logical fallacies and the persuasiveness of an argument. Can an argument be both fallacious and persuasive?
  5. How can the awareness of logical fallacies alter one’s approach to reading philosophical texts?
  6. What is the difference between using a logical fallacy unintentionally and employing it as a rhetorical strategy?
  7. Can the presence of a logical fallacy in an argument invalidate the entire philosophical position? Why or why not?
  8. How do logical fallacies impact debates on ethics and morality? Provide examples.
  9. What strategies can be employed to avoid the use of logical fallacies in philosophical writing and discussions?
  10. Is it possible for an argument to be fundamentally sound if it contains a logical fallacy? How should one assess such an argument?
  11. How does the context of a philosophical discussion influence the perception and impact of logical fallacies?
  12. Discuss the role of education in recognizing and understanding logical fallacies. How can philosophical education address this?
  13. In what ways do logical fallacies differ when applied in theoretical versus applied philosophy?
  14. How can the study of logical fallacies contribute to developing a more critical and analytical mindset?
  15. Explore the ethical implications of knowingly using logical fallacies in philosophical arguments. Is it ever morally justifiable?

These questions are intended to prompt reflection on the nuances of logical reasoning within the realm of philosophy, encouraging a deeper understanding of both the pitfalls and potentials of argumentative discourse. Engaging with these questions can help sharpen critical thinking skills and foster a more rigorous approach to philosophical inquiry.

15 Discussion Questions on Logical Fallacies in Philosophy:

  1. Awareness: How familiar are you with common logical fallacies, and how actively do you try to identify them in philosophical discussions?
  2. Impact: Do you think the use of logical fallacies is ever justified in philosophical arguments, and if so, when?
  3. Intention: Should the intent behind a fallacy (accidental vs. deliberate) influence how we respond to it in a philosophical debate?
  4. Detection: What strategies do you find most effective for detecting logical fallacies in your own arguments and those of others?
  5. Impact on Truth: How do logical fallacies hinder the pursuit of truth in philosophical discussions?
  6. Emotional Influence: How do emotions contribute to the use and acceptance of logical fallacies in philosophical debates?
  7. Responsibility: Who holds the responsibility for identifying and addressing logical fallacies in a philosophical discussion?
  8. Counterarguments: When responding to an argument containing a fallacy, should you focus on exposing the fallacy or presenting a counterargument to the main point?
  9. Education: How can we effectively educate people about logical fallacies and their impact on philosophical discourse?
  10. Formal vs Informal Fallacies: Are formal fallacies (like affirming the consequent) more problematic than informal ones (like ad hominem) in philosophical discussions? Why or why not?
  11. Cultural Influence: Do different cultures have varying sensitivities to and acceptance of logical fallacies in philosophical debate?
  12. Humor and Satire: Can humor or satire be used effectively to expose logical fallacies in a philosophical context?
  13. Historical Impact: How have the use and understanding of logical fallacies evolved throughout history, and how has this impacted philosophical discourse?
  14. The Role of Humility: How can cultivating humility help us be more receptive to identifying and correcting fallacies in our own philosophical arguments?
  15. Building Constructive Discourse: How can we utilize the awareness of logical fallacies to build more productive and intellectually honest philosophical discussions?

Remember, these are just starting points, and the discussions they spark can be tailored to specific philosophical inquiries or challenges faced by the group. The ultimate goal is to foster open, honest, and well-reasoned discourse in the pursuit of philosophical understanding.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. List the 20 most common logical fallacies seen in philosophical discussions.
  2. Provide 5 examples of actual logical fallacies found in historical public debates.
    1. 1. Appeal to Authority in the Scopes Trial (1925)
    2. 2. Slippery Slope in the Debate on Women’s Suffrage
    3. 3. Straw Man in the McCarthy Era (1950s)
    4. 4. Ad Hominem in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1858)
    5. 5. False Dilemma in the Debate Over the League of Nations (1919-1920)
    6. 5 Examples of Logical Fallacies in Historical Public Debates:
  3. Provide a 15-item quiz on common logical fallacies with answers at the end.
    1. Quiz: Identify the Logical Fallacy
    2. Answers
    3. Fallacy Frenzy: Test Your Logical Reasoning!
  4. Provide 15 discussion questions related to logical fallacies in the context of philosophical discussions.
    1. 15 Discussion Questions on Logical Fallacies in Philosophy:

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT 4, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, his far more intelligent AI friends. The five of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a seminal figure in modern philosophy, contributing to metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. His concept of monads, the principle of sufficient reason, and the idea of the best of all possible worlds… Read more

  • Collapsing Epistemological Terms

    This article delves into the challenges of defining epistemological terms and proposes methods to achieve productive dialogue. It emphasizes collapsing 2nd-order terms into 1st-order concepts like “credence” for clarity and mutual understanding. However, some responses… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Hegel

    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy has left a lasting impact. While his concept of the dialectic is widely acknowledged, his Absolute Spirit and Absolute Idealism are less accepted due to their speculative and metaphysical nature.… Read more

  • John Locke

    John Locke profoundly influenced modern philosophy, challenging prevailing rationalist views and emphasizing knowledge derived from sensory experiences. His concept of the mind as a “tabula rasa” at birth and his political theories significantly impacted political… Read more

  • Dangers: Awe as an Indicator

    The argument presents an insightful perspective on the subjective nature of beauty and the relationship between the observer and the observed. It questions the idea of objective beauty and challenges anthropocentric viewpoints. It also acknowledges… Read more

  • The Power of Statistics

    Statistics play a crucial role in acquiring truth by providing tools for interpreting data, quantifying uncertainty, and making informed decisions. Its power lies in quantifying evidence, pattern recognition, hypothesis testing, decision-making, understanding variability, and effective… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Charles Sanders Peirce

    Charles Sanders Peirce explains his philosophy, covering pragmatism, semiotics, and the scientific method. Pragmatism evaluates ideas by their practical consequences. Semiotics studies signs: icons, indexes, and symbols. The scientific method involves hypothesis, experimentation, and revision.… Read more

  • Baruch Spinoza

    Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch philosopher, significantly influenced modern philosophy by challenging traditional dualistic views and championing reason as the path to knowledge. His deterministic view of the universe led to groundbreaking contributions in monism,… Read more

  • Subjectivity Constrained by the Objective

    Subjective experience, influenced by objective reality, emerges from subjective creatures trying to navigate the world. Objective limitations and neural flexibility shape rich subjectivity, displaying various quirks. Cognitive biases, emotional states, and exploratory nature raise potential… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Epicurus

    Epicurus, an influential ancient Greek philosopher, advocated for pleasure as the highest good, tranquility of the mind, and the moderation of desires. While some of his specific ideas have evolved, they continue to shape contemporary… Read more

  • Faith or Evidence?

    This article explores the tension between citing miracles and advocating for faith as a reason to believe in God. It delves into how these concepts are viewed and reconciled within religious epistemology. The passage also… Read more

  • Testing Prayer

    A definitive prayer test would involve a specific, observable miracle, like restoring amputated limbs, occurring within a set timeframe following prayers directed to a specific God. Control groups would be essential to exclude coincidences and… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Socrates

    Socrates’ philosophy has left a lasting impact on critical thinking and ethical exploration. His Socratic Method continues to inspire dialogue in various fields. The notion of ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ challenges societal… Read more

  • Monetary Goals

    A rational disposition toward money and possessions involves moderation, value-focused decision-making, and long-term planning, prioritizing experiences over material possessions. Historical figures like Diogenes of Sinope and St. Francis of Assisi found happiness through self-sufficiency and… Read more

  • Thomas Aquinas

    Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of the 13th century, profoundly impacted Western philosophy by integrating Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine. His influence is seen in Scholasticism, natural law theory, and the synthesis of… Read more

  • Culture-Wide Emotional Dispositions

    This article discusses the cultural aspects of emotional expression in Japanese society and its impact on child development. It emphasizes the influence of cultural norms on emotional expression, the effects of emotional suppression in childhood,… Read more

  • Shades of Certainty

    This article critiques the binary notion of belief, arguing that belief and liking exist on a spectrum rather than as fixed categories. It highlights the linguistic and ontological conflicts of oversimplified binary perspectives and emphasizes… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Aristotle

    This article includes lengthy dialogues involving Aristotle discussing his philosophical ideas with various individuals, such as a curious teenager, another philosopher exploring his philosophy, and a critical philosopher confronting him on weaknesses in his philosophy.… Read more

  • Detecting Bad Science

    This article provides insight into spotting bad science, vulnerable science domains, pressures driving improper science, questions to ask when evaluating scientific claims, a quiz on scientific claims, and discussion questions. It covers sensationalized headlines, conflicts… Read more

  • Our View of Humanity

    A distorted view of human nature can severely distort our beliefs about events involving humans. Each of the distorted views presented impacts our perceptions and interactions. Real-life tragedies, such as those involving Ted Kaczynski and… Read more

  • Appreciating our Insignificance 

    Accepting our cosmic insignificance offers advantages such as humility, perspective, unity, innovation, and resilience. Staying grounded amid ideologies promising cosmic importance involves mindfulness, gratitude, rationality, meaningful connections, and limiting exposure to grandiose narratives. Real-life accounts… Read more

  • Charles Sanders Peirce

    Charles Sanders Peirce was a foundational figure in American philosophy, best known as the progenitor of pragmatism. His ideas significantly influenced logic, the philosophy of science, and semiotics. His lasting mark on philosophy includes pragmatism,… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version
Indicate your interests:

Links to Section Menus