Showing 165 to 168

Philosophy

Uncategorized

Stoicism🔗

See my excerpts from book The Stoics.

Epicureanism

Note to self: let Epicurus stand for this

Cynicism🔗

Philosophical "Empiricists"🔗

There's an old disagreement between this group and the "Rationalists". At least that's how Kant saw it. I don't know if the characters in these groups would have considered this an important distinction.

Philosophical "Rationalists"🔗

Do not confuse these with the dogmatists in the early history of medicine, who have also been called "rationalists". 5th century medicine looks similar to 17th century philosophy in that the "rationalists" disagreed with the "empiricists", however the terms do not mean the same things.

Kantianism (note to self: let Kant's own page stand for it)

Existentialism🔗

"Analytic philosophy"🔗

"Continental philosophy"

(The term is nearly meaningless, it just means "not Analytic")

  • Heidegger?
  • Hegel?

What links here

Created (3 years ago)

Septum artes liberales

The seven liberal arts.

Here, liberal art means it's for the wealthy, people who are "free" to waste time. Comes from the Middle Ages, but the notion of a set of arts/sciences as a core for the citizen's education was not new, this continues Isocrates' "paideia" and Quintilian's "ideal education".

Trivium🔗

First part of the Septum artes liberales.

The adjective "trivial" comes from the subjects in trivium, which were seen as beneath the subjects in quadrivium. Rhetoric was not given any special significance, and Aristotle's Rhetoric was largely forgotten outside the Muslim realm.

Quadrivium🔗

Advanced part of the Septum artes liberales. The "mathematical" arts…

  • Astronomy
  • Arithmetic
  • Geometry
  • Music

What links here

Created (3 years ago)

The domain of rhetoric

What is #rhetoric for?

There exists a simplistic distinction between "convincing someone of something" and "proving it". One is about being right (att ha rätt); finding a conclusion that's true independent of what others think, via logic/philosophy/research. The other is about showing yourself right (att få rätt); getting the listeners to believe in something independently of whether it's true or not.

This is a common view, but even for Aristotle it was a too simple distinction. It's actually about two separate kinds of questions:

  1. where the answer can only be one way
  2. where the answer could be in any way (can never be settled once and for all). "That which could be different". This, he means, is where rhetoric can be applied.

If I understand correctly, the sophists would have merged both and then said that rhetoric both creates knowledge and proves it. See Knowledge production.

Borde inte använda retorik för att framföra en förutfattad åsikt, utan hitta den rätta åsikten. Vi kan använda konsten för att driva ett produktivt samtal.

What links here

Created (3 years ago)
Showing 165 to 168