arguments [Theme] Page 1

Strong arguments are afraid of weighing.

- But...
- I want to hear: "I understand you, coach."
- Coach... - Further arguments instantly flew out of my head when Andrew intercepted his wrist and squeezed it slightly. A flash of pain burned his fingers and Neil quickly pulled out his hand. Josten looked at Miniyard with an unkind look, but he didn't even look in his direction. Pressing his hand against him, Neil bent over her, struggling with sensations and trying to protect her from repeated exposure, and then switched his attention back to Waimak.
"Thank you," the coach nodded, addressing Minyard.

And we understand that it is precisely such inadequacies that lead to gigantic political mistakes: underestimating the masses, overestimating ourselves, overestimating the role of allies. Serious business looks at politicians and thinks: where are you taking us?

Not understanding the logic of my mentor, I asked the main question of any sane person:
- Why?
I have had a special relationship with this issue since the first time I visited the timeless. I generally believed that it should be the cornerstone of the life of every sentient being. A timely question would deprive the world of most of the problems, for "why" they are needed, and would save many individuals from rash actions. And yet, if you force all beings to honestly and reasonably answer this question, then how easy it was to sort assholes from normal frames.
"- Let's get a dog!
- Why?
- She's going to be on the lawn, and I'm going to have joy in life about someone falling into it.
- Okay, the argument!
"I'm going to run for governor!
- Why?
- Because I dream of starting a small family business on kickbacks and bribes!
-" Great goal in life!"
"- Let's go swell in the evening?
- Why?
- Just to swell!
- Good reason!"
If we consider that all beings are accustomed to seeing themselves terribly positive, then such thoughts would not even come to their mind. Well, I'm not like that! It is a pity that in reality, the creatures will come up with other arguments to justify themselves, which do not detract from their dignity.
"A dog is a member of the family. She will brighten up my loneliness."
"Since childhood, I dreamed of serving for the benefit of the people!"
"I'm bubbling because I want to forget about my problems: a mortgage, a fucking job and a tired wife ... You know what I'm telling you."
The ability to ask oneself this question and answer honestly distinguished a sane person from empty balabols.

People are ready to chat and dream about all sorts of nonsense, denigrate any topic, complain nonstop and gossip always. But when you talk about religion, gods, philosophy, epistemology, the a priori conclusions of the mind and the rationalization of the mind, while citing idiotic arguments, they immediately consider you a jerk. You have only one way out in this losing position - it is to stick to the language of silence forever, because you really do not like playing according to their rules ...

Arguments are not facts, and facts are not arguments, and how they penetrate each other and mix remains an eternal mystery.

A. Kojeve analyzes various arguments in favor of the philosopher's refusal to take political action and finds them unsatisfactory. No more satisfying, according to Tyranny and Wisdom (1950), are the philosophical arguments for the political involvement of the philosopher. Kojève asserts the impossibility of an unambiguous solution to this problem solely in the plane of discussion and, relying on Hegel, thematizes the method of "historical verification" as a possible (albeit always temporary) way to get out of this contradiction. Kojève interprets this historical verification as an “active dialogue”, which implies a distinction between victory in a purely “verbal dialogue” and a convincing criterion of truth.

- You have changed somewhat during the four years that we haven't seen.
- What?
- You had good arguments in the debate.

"Science has become a Church," wrote M. Ernst in the period when its unusual and interesting ideas of M. Planck opposed not the case, but the General opinion of scientists, and Max refused to recognize the authority of the Church: "Freedom of thought is dearer to me". But freedom of thought means very little for proselytes science of our days, who can neither understand nor forgive of alternatives to modern science or unusual ideas in the science.

Wait, what, in your opinion, looking for women?
I do not know. Beauty, charm, youth.
- Garbage. They are looking for loot, security. Now ask him [pointing to an elderly man and his young companion]. And then you have arguments.

If people believe in the truth of any proposition, they are willing to believe, even untenable arguments in support of it.

Oddly enough, but when a couple perceives emotions and quarrels as normal, it is easier to recover from them. Partners take your anger and are ready to deal with the root causes of the conflict situation. A flash of rage, if you know how to deal with them, pave the way for healing communication. Knowing in advance that the conversation about the relationship could give rise to scandal with mutual recriminations, you won't be so depressed when this happens. Reassured, you will be able to reformulate their arguments and go to the recovery phase. To start with a phrase like: "I'm Sorry, I overreacted, but even the good that we all expressed to each other. Now let's understand easily in our relationship."

A real fisherman who caught a lot, but the one who convincingly proved that that was impossible.

The wording that you want to explain useless.