Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat doesn't seem like a Straw Man to me. You're not attributing any argument to saul.
Of course--but such a meaningless concept as spirituality could only generate broad and nebulous statements.
(Someone needs to count the straw men--sonofsaul? I think I might just have used one).
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThat seems clearly not to be the Strawman Fallacy, but I can't find what it is. It does seem like it should be a fallacy.
Here is it, past lunch time here and I am still waiting for my chance to not use a strawman in an argument. Ho-hum.
Well, to fill in the time, perhaps one of you dear lurkers can help me clarify the strawman concept for myself. It seems that at least by the wikipedia definition that the strawman can only be used to assist in negating an opponents a ...[text shortened]... f a strawman, or is it something else? If not, is there another term for this erroneous tactic?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn addition to the definition of "spirituality", may I suggest we also need a clear definition of "meaningless"?
Considering the venue, it would have to be something spiritual.
OK, I'll argue that the concept of spirituality is meaningless in modern society. What do you say?
For instance, we could use 'meaningless' in the sense of "asdfsadfsa is a meaningless word".
Or we could use 'meaningless' to refer to 'lack of purpose, reason or logos' (as the Neo-Platinists would put it).
Or we could use 'meaningless' to mean 'incoherence, incompatible with known truths'.
Originally posted by lucifershammerExcellent point. Clarity first. I will leave it to Bosse de Nage to choose a definition though, as he chose the path of argument.
In addition to the definition of "spirituality", may I suggest we also need a clear definition of "meaningless"?
For instance, we could use 'meaningless' in the sense of "asdfsadfsa is a meaningless word".
Or we could use 'meaningless' to refer to 'lack of purpose, reason or logos' (as the Neo-Platinists would put it).
Or we could use 'meaningless' to mean 'incoherence, incompatible with known truths'.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI think the barebones definition here is insufficient. No description of spirituality is complete without looking into the question that all spiritual traditions attempt to answer - "Why does the Universe exist? Why am/are I/we here?"
The most general sense of the word then. Spirituality: of the spirit. Spirit: 1) an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, 2) the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person. I think that covers the relevant definitions.
Some spiritual traditions offer a straight answer - as with Christianity, Islam, Advaitha etc. Some simply show the path to obtain the answer - as with Zen. Nevertheless, in both cases, the Question remains the core of spirituality.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAllow me to retort.
OK. I'll kick off.
1) "Spirit" is simply an outdated concept from times when people believed that some superior being had literally breathed life into them. Life begins at fertilisation and its development is programmed by DNA.
2) A person does not have an immaterial intelligent or sentient part.
*ahem*
1) F*** you.
2) Therefore, spirituality is meaningful.
What do I win?
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWow! Me too! I don't know what I'm talking about either. What a relief to finally know the Truth!
No, it seems strange though... I think it's a new animal ... it's ... I don't believe it ... it couldn't be ... it is! ... it's a statement completely without fallacy! Ladies and Gents we are presented with the truth!
Originally posted by vistesdDoes that mean we won't get to see a strawman argument?
Wow! Me too! I don't know what I'm talking about either. What a relief to finally know the Truth!
Damn, I was so looking forward to that...
(Incidentally, sonhouse's arguments against Omnislash's defence of the place of ID in the classroom seem like strawman reasoning to me)
Originally posted by sonhouseYeah, actually my perception of the thread was a lighthearted one. I'd think my argumentum ad metasmugness was taken with a grain of salt.
A booby prize? I think, believe it or not, they are trying to have
a serious debate here, so being flippant is not in the theme of
this thread.
Besides, the logic there is irrefutable.