In Aristotles theaetetus his speaks about analytical thinking rather than philosophical thinking, although we consider him to be a great philosopher of our time. In the doctrine of the categories, including; substance, quantity, quality, relation, activity and passivity; these past under the title of the Organon. This meaning the principles of science; that which are most important include the prior analytics.
This is where he sets down the doctrine for syllogism. Then comes the posterior Analytics, this is where he discusses the value of reasoning in order for something to be truly scientific factual information. Somewhat like where you make a hypothesis, on what you think is going to happen although he states it has to be TRULY scientific.
Topica, somewhat like a topic ; where he sustains the remote aspect upon reasoning itself; thought processes.
The categories and the De Interpretatione, where subsidiaries to the Organon. Books 11-V11 are also said to belong to the Aristotelian Doctrines or Dialogues , so to speak. This was related to the Topica as well; stating it was not created all in the same date of time.
The Aristotelian Doctrine, only survived in fragmented pieces. Books 11-V11 were said to have made their contribution to the world around the time Aristotle spoke of logical reasoning. De Sophictis elenchis was also part of the Topica. It is said that Topica is said to be older than Analytics all together. Does this mean that Aristotle created the former (Analytical Thinking.)
The order is said to be Topica V111, posterior analytics 1, prior analytics, they state that the two analytics are correct in pristine conditions of this new world order; or the world as a whole in infinite time and space.
The Topicas purpose was to have logical reasoning belonging to freedom of speech; and that people were capable of self contradictory. Therefore, sustaining the questioner and the answerer in a systematic discussion inclined to create an infiltrated conversation. This is how the conversation was created. This had to make dialectic discussions to be held to truth and have an immediate reaction.
dialectical syllogism is started through the idea of knowledge based conversations, the more knowledge you know and attain, the more you can ascertain a conversationalist.
The use of dialectics are three in number; they are general training, mental training and often used to apply to the scientific studies arena. It is stated that if you can argue a conversation to be pro vs con; that you can recognize who is being truthful or falsification, who is lying.
Aristotles timeline of books : Book 1, dealing with the introduction , book 11 and 111; deal with accidental problems or behavioral issues. Books 1V and V are about genius and property, all contouring to dialectical behavioral thinking.
The De Sophistics Elenchis, deals with the Topica as speaking of an arguer and someone reciprocating that argumentative behavior. Most argumentative people being argued with falsifications are to steer away from argument rather than approach it. He used logical fallacy to make the worst case scenario look like it’s somewhat ok or falsified conviction; when in reality it’s not.
However, if you aren’t wise enough to realize the situation at hand, it is not the argumentative persons deed to help you figure out what is being congruent to the point they are rendering. Aristotle was known as deceiving the innocent and helping the argumentative side , by making it look uncanny. The book falls into two categories, 3-15 refutation of fallacies / why they are the way they are and the solution of fallacies; how to make them better.
Reasoning a fallacy is what comes next, however psychological reasoning to any falsified information is counter intuitive meaning it is amplified as something greater than it should be. In shorter terms, it means fighting with a person; allowing that person to step all over you and then, having a reason for doing so; manipulation, creation of illusion, the obscure, the infinite idea of something that is or is not.
Here is a perfect example, there are those that want to be something, and those that actually are. However there is a correlation to that because they do say fake it until you make it. However, I don’t think anyone impinent could be so fake; where as someone would be able to look straight through them.
realism vs refutation, creating what is and what is not real, mostly not real. This is because there are so many people out there who lie, steal, cheat and get hated on for it. While, the honest of people, also get hated on for doing one wrong thing. It’s considered to enact probable cause.
Reasoning, is based on certain statements that are provoked into action. Refutation is the former, it is reasoning accompanied by a contrasting element to a conclusion. He states that refutations affect their object only in certain situations or countries for that matter.
Aristotle was very intrigued with numbers and names saying that they were one in the same. He goes on to state that those who are not clever enough to count money and also falsified as clever when they don’t know names. I guess memory and knowledge have an understanding between one another. It doesn’t mean your brain is not working if you forget a name here and there; hey, I’ve encountered several hundred millions of people. It’s not okay to think I remember names of every person, however, faces I am very good with.
Now, arguments that are used in discussion come in four different sectors. They are, didactic, dialectical, examinational arguments and contentious arguments. didactic arguments are spoken upon trust, whomever is learning must trust the professor or philosophical thinker on his ideas, without reasoning. Dialectical arguments seem to have an opinion on the opponent being argued with, a contradiction. Examination arguments are held by answerer and opinionated opponent, claiming knowledge to the subject. Lastly , contentious arguments are reasoning or what appears to be so by opinion based people who argumentatively appeal to them.
Competitive and Contentious arguments, the number five, the opinions of all who objectify an argument and retort to it. A fallacy, refutation, paradox, solecism and fifthly.
Plead the 5th 🤪
Dr. Laura Zukerman
Owner and Founder At The Goddess Bibles A Memoir By Laura Zukerman
Becoming Your Inner Goddess
God’s don’t destroy others , they lift them up