A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies (Argumentation Library) by Leonard Nelson, Fernando Leal, D. G. Carus

By Leonard Nelson, Fernando Leal, D. G. Carus

Presented as a Vorlesung within the German philosophical culture, this publication provides the main special account of Nelson’s approach to argument research, celebrated by means of many luminaries equivalent to Karl Popper. It was once written in 1921 against the relativistic, subjectivistic and nihilistic trends of Nelson’s time. The booklet includes an exposition of a style that could be a extra improvement of Kant’s transcendental dialectics, by means of an software to the severe research of arguments by means of many well-known thinkers, together with Bentham, Mill, Poincaré, Leibniz, Hegel, Einstein, Bergson, Rickert, Simmel, Brentano, Stammler, Jellinek, Dingler, and Meinong. The ebook provides a common concept of philosophical argumentation as visible from the point of view of the common fallacies devoted by way of anyone arguing philosophically, even if expert philosophers or philosophical laypeople. even supposing the character of philosophy and philosophical argumentation is among the so much recurrent items of mirrored image for philosophers, this booklet represents the 1st test at a normal thought of philosophical fallacy. in line with Nelson, it really is within the form of fake dilemmas that error in reasoning constantly emerge, and fake dilemmas are continually the results of a similar mechanism--the unwitting alternative of 1 suggestion for another.

Show description

Read or Download A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies (Argumentation Library) PDF

Similar theory books

A Theory of Psychological Scaling

This monograph describes the development of a mental conception that defines the data inside the responses of people to stimuli. This has been comprehensive via abstracting yes houses of habit which are invariant over content material. those were labeled and quantified in a concept of information that, with the quasi-formal foundation hypothesized right here, determines the genotypic inferences that could be made of show up habit.

Additional resources for A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies (Argumentation Library)

Sample text

Fraser’s Magazine 64: 391–406, 525–534, 658–673. [Reprinted many times]. Poincaré, Henri. 1902. La science et l’hypothèse. Paris: Flammarion. [English Trans. The Foundations of Science: Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science, Science and Method, New York, The Science Press, 1929, pp. 9–197]. Lecture IV Abstract The excess of confidence in logic culminates in logicism, a position common to medieval Scholasticism and modern rationalism. This mistake can best be illustrated by the idea, especially developed by Leibniz, that the lack of contradiction in a concept is a warrant that the corresponding object exists.

E. a position that could rightly be called philosophical. Yet this feeling, finding expression on all sides, is easily confused with a faculty that is in itself sufficient to take hold of philosophical truth. The feeling people talk about apparently amounts to some form of intuition. People in fact speak of the intuitive apprehension of the truth and believe that the aforementioned feeling is an apprehension of that sort. Whoever relies exclusively on this feeling is in danger of mistaking it for a faculty that can itself take hold of philosophical truth.

It is not merely contrary to reasoning, but also to what some people find disagreeable about reasoning, namely the work which accompanies it. The sophisticate philosophy is basically a workaverse philosophy. Proof of this can be found in the articles and books that have become so common nowadays and are praised as being the spirit of the times in the field of philosophy. Doing philosophy the sophisticate way is celebrated for not being a matter of work, but a matter of creation, and those who do philosophy in this way flatter themselves with the notion that they will be reckoned to be artists or even that they were born artists.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.12 of 5 – based on 22 votes