Sophistry

[Agondonter]

Sophistry, a deliberately invalid argument or statement displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone, bugs the crap out of me. Statements like "I would have to know what you mean by "spirit" before thinking about whether a body can produce one" and “Metabolism would fit that [dictionary] definition [of spirit]” are prime examples of what I mean.

Give me a break.

The dictionary definition of spirit is “the vital principle or animating force within living things.” Only a sophist intent on sowing confusion would say 'metabolism' fits that the dictionary definition of 'spirit.'

Why would they do that?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Sophistry, a deliberately invalid argument or statement displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone, bugs the crap out of me. Statements like "I would have to know what you mean by "spirit" before thinking about whether a body can produce one" and “Metabolism would fit that [dictionary] definition [of spirit]” are prime examples of what I mean.

Give me a break.

The dictionary definition of spirit is “the vital principle or animating force within living things.” Only a sophist intent on sowing confusion would say 'metabolism' fits that the dictionary definition of 'spirit.'

Why would they do that?

It could be (read, in my experience here on RF) that the one responding wants to clarify what the other poster actually means, because, having been on RF for awhile, they realize that dictionary definitions are often of limited use when discussing the wide variety of ideas discussed here. And, they realize that assuming that when someone uses a word (such as spirit) it is meant in the sense provided for in the dictionary can lead to arguments and misunderstandings.

Dictionaries are good for learning the general common usages of words, but in specialized areas (such as theology, philosophy, the physical sciences, mathematics, the social sciences, etc., as well as when dealing with concepts from other cultures and languages) the dictionary definitions are often incomplete or inaccurate at best.

For example, the dictionary as you point out provides a common usage of "spirit" as
“the vital principle or animating force," but some consider "spirit" to be an emergent property of living things. Others consider spirit to be consciousness, and so on...

 

[PackJason]

Sophistry, a deliberately invalid argument or statement displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone, bugs the crap out of me. Statements like "I would have to know what you mean by "spirit" before thinking about whether a body can produce one" and “Metabolism would fit that [dictionary] definition [of spirit]” are prime examples of what I mean.

Give me a break.

The dictionary definition of spirit is “the vital principle or animating force within living things.” Only a sophist intent on sowing confusion would say 'metabolism' fits that the dictionary definition of 'spirit.'

Why would they do that?

So you dislike clarity?

Sometimes semantics/dialect/diction/vernacular are important.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Sophistry" has connotations of dishonesty, but it doesn't preclude sincere but fallacious arguments.
I see plenty of logically flawed arguments by people who profess their admiration for logic, & seem sincere.

 

[Demonslayer]

Poster ACIM says that human parents are all Gods Because of the last two definitions in Webster.

3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sophistry, a deliberately invalid argument or statement displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone, bugs the crap out of me.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Agondonter]

"Sophistry" has connotations of dishonesty, but it doesn't preclude sincere but fallacious arguments.
I see plenty of logically flawed arguments by people who profess their admiration for logic, & seem sincere.

You're right, and I deliberately use the word “sophistry for that reason. It implies there some dishonesty. Granted, there is much confusion regarding words like 'faith' and 'God,' but the word 'spirit' is unambiguous even in modern parlance. It just doesn't make sense to me. I honestly do not understand why someone would say 'metabolism' fits the definition of 'spirit' unless their aim is to muddy the water and thereby make meaningful conversation impossible.

The only alternative to it being sophistry that I can imagine is that such a mind is befogged by too much thinking, in which case I was being much too hasty.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You're right, and I deliberately use the word “sophistry for that reason. It implies there some dishonesty. Granted, there is much confusion regarding words like 'faith' and 'God,' but the word 'spirit' is unambiguous even in modern parlance. It just doesn't make sense to me. I honestly do not understand why someone would say 'metabolism' fits the definition of 'spirit' unless their aim is to muddy the water and thereby make meaningful conversation impossible.

The only alternative to it being sophistry that I can imagine is that such a mind is befogged by too much thinking, in which case I was being much too hasty.

"The only alternative?" "Unambiguous?"

Then your understanding of both language and of reasoning is incredibly poor, making you, ironically, a sophist yourself. Dictionaries are NOT the final arbiter of meaning or usage, and insisting that people who have spent time and effort studying ideas such as God, Faith, Religion and Spirit don't know about more nuanced usages than a dictionary is...well...simplistic, and insulting.

 

[Agondonter]

"The only alternative?" "Unambiguous?"

Then your understanding of both language and of reasoning is incredibly poor, making you, ironically, a sophist yourself. Dictionaries are NOT the final arbiter of meaning or usage, and insisting that people who have spent time and effort studying ideas such as God, Faith, Religion and Spirit don't know about more nuanced usages than a dictionary is...well...simplistic, and insulting.

Yes, it is. But true nonetheless.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think it's wrong to ask for clarification on terms, especially those which tend to have multiple or personal meanings.

However, I'm not quite sure how metabolism fits that definition either. Neural activity probably would be closer to the mark. But shoehorning a physical property into something that's obviously intended to be a bit more, well, spiritual, does seem to indicate a bit of obtuseness.

Not sure if that's sophistry or not though.

 

[Agondonter]

I don't think it's wrong to ask for clarification on terms, especially those which tend to have multiple or personal meanings.

However, I'm not quite sure how metabolism fits that definition either. Neural activity probably would be closer to the mark. But shoehorning a physical property into something that's obviously intended to be a bit more, well, spiritual, does seem to indicate a bit of obtuseness.

Not sure if that's sophistry or not though.

There is indeed much confusion respecting terms like 'God' and 'faith' and they do need clarification. But 'spirit' is not one of those words.

Things can be so nuanced as to be made unintelligible, and I've seen a lot of that here. Especially among atheists. This, I think is a particularly poignant example.

 

[Riverwolf]

You're right, and I deliberately use the word “sophistry for that reason. It implies there some dishonesty. Granted, there is much confusion regarding words like 'faith' and 'God,' but the word 'spirit' is unambiguous even in modern parlance.

Sometimes.

It's also used in reference to attitude and behavior, as in the phrase, "That person has a lot of spirit", and in adjective "spirited."

Yes, it is. But true nonetheless.

Hardly. It's actually quite false.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. The shorthand form of that is this: if people are using a word in a way that is not in the dictionary, then it's the dictionary that's wrong and needs to be updated. Thus, they are very bad sources for such matters.

You keep citing the "dictionary definition", but you aren't saying which dictionary you're using, nor are you citing which definition you're using. Here's the 7 from dictionary.com (on the noun form):

noun
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2.the incorporeal part of humans:
present in spirit though absent in body.
3.the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4.conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter:
the world of spirit.
5.a supernatural, incorporeal being, especially one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character:
evil spirits.
6.a fairy, sprite, or elf.
7.an angel or demon.​

And every single one of these is correct, regardless of whether they are contradictory or not. While I do agree that equating spirit with "metabolism" is quite a stretch, I don't think there's any dishonesty or deception at play.

Now, did you know that the origin of the word, the Latin spiritus, had connotations of "breath"? That means etymologically, it's conceptually cognate with such Eastern concepts like prana and qi. While I don't think the modern English word "spirit" has much to do with breath anymore, I think if there's any biological function that could be its equivalent, breath would be the best bet.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There is indeed much confusion respecting terms like 'God' and 'faith' and they do need clarification. But 'spirit' is not one of those words.

Things can be so nuanced as to be made unintelligible, and I've seen a lot of that here. Especially among atheists. This, I think is a particularly poignant example.

hmmm. In the spirit of a good discussion, looking at the Oxford English Dictionary online, I see 22 different uses for the noun "spirit," (not counting the variations of usage noted a, b, c, etc.; and not including compounds; and the eight usages--still not counting the a, b, c, etc. nuanced meanings--of the verb spirit) many with a very different spirit than the singular meaning that you insist is clearly understood to mean only one of those. I think I will spirit away now and allow you to stew in your own spirits!

 

[Agondonter]

Sometimes.

It's also used in reference to attitude and behavior, as in the phrase, "That person has a lot of spirit", and in adjective "spirited."

Yes; it is context dependent. In context, the latter is clearly not the case.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Yes, and its description of 'spirit' is not also a description of 'metabolism.' That's my point.

You keep citing the "dictionary definition", but you aren't saying which dictionary you're using, nor are you citing which definition you're using. Here's the 7 from dictionary.com (on the noun form):

noun
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2.the incorporeal part of humans:
present in spirit though absent in body.
3.the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4.conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter:
the world of spirit.
5.a supernatural, incorporeal being, especially one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character:
evil spirits.
6.a fairy, sprite, or elf.
7.an angel or demon.​

And every single one of these is correct, regardless of whether they are contradictory or not. While I do agree that equating spirit with "metabolism" is quite a stretch, I don't think there's any dishonesty or deception at play.

You're ignoring the context, which is a tactic of sophistry. Even so, what do any of those 7 have to do with 'metabolism' or in the context the comparison was used?

Now, did you know that the origin of the word, the Latin spiritus, had connotations of "breath"? That means etymologically, it's conceptually cognate with such Eastern concepts like prana and qi.

Tell me something I don't know.

While I don't think the modern English word "spirit" has much to do with breath anymore, I think if there's any biological function that could be its equivalent, breath would be the best bet.

Yes, so long as 'breath' is not equated with anything physical, like 'metabolism.'

hmmm. In the spirit of a good discussion, looking at the Oxford English Dictionary online, I see 22 different uses for the noun "spirit," (not counting the variations of usage noted a, b, c, etc.; and not including compounds; and the eight usages--still not counting the a, b, c, etc. nuanced meanings--of the verb spirit) many with a very different spirit than the singular meaning that you insist is clearly understood to mean only one of those. I think I will spirit away now and allow you to stew in your own spirits!

I'm quite aware of the many meanings 'spirit' takes on when it's taken out of a religious context.


All this goes a long way towards showing that many people here are more interested in sophistry than genuine discourse. 'Spirit' is not the ambiguous term it is made out to be.

ambiguous: 1) An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context 2) Unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning

'Spirit' has more than one meaning, but how it's used can be clearly determined by its context -- something sophists are averse to doing (as these two quoted posts clearly show).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes; it is context dependent. In context, the latter is clearly not the case.

Yes, and its description of 'spirit' is not also a description of 'metabolism.' That's my point.

You're ignoring the context, which is a tactic of sophistry. Even so, what do any of those 7 have to do with 'metabolism' or in the context the comparison was used?

Tell me something I don't know.

Yes, so long as 'breath' is not equated with anything physical, like 'metabolism.'

I'm quite aware of the many meanings 'spirit' takes on when it's taken out of a religious context.


All this goes a long way towards showing that many people here are more interested in sophistry than genuine discourse.


Hmmmm. This calls for some disambiguation of terms.

So, your argument, based as it was in sophistry, requires further clarification, as other people in other threads have asked, because there are many different ways to understand various terms....?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes; it is context dependent. In context, the latter is clearly not the case.

Yes, and its description of 'spirit' is not also a description of 'metabolism.' That's my point.

And it's descriptively wrong if a significant population is equating the two words, and effectively communicating with each other in so doing.

You're ignoring the context, which is a tactic of sophistry. Even so, what do any of those 7 have to do with 'metabolism' or in the context the comparison was used?

Yes, so long as 'breath' is not equated with anything physical, like 'metabolism.'

...breath is a physical process.

I'm quite aware of the many meanings 'spirit' takes on when it's taken out of a religious context.

Wasn't this whole idea of equating "spirit" with "metabolism" just an example of what you presume to be an active deception?

 

[Falvlun]

And it's descriptively wrong if a significant population is equating the two words, and effectively communicating with each other in so doing.



...breath is a physical process.



Wasn't this whole idea of equating "spirit" with "metabolism" just an example of what you presume to be an active deception?

Well, to be fair, nobody equates "spirit" with "metabolism", and it would be pretty rare to equate it with a physical process at all. I think that's part of agondonter's point.

Even if "metabolism" could technically fit the definition he provided for "spirit", it is obviously not what he means, or what is usually meant by, the word. As he says, the context should have eliminated metabolism as a possibility.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, to be fair, nobody equates "spirit" with "metabolism", and it would be pretty rare to equate it with a physical process at all. I think that's part of agondonter's point.

Even if "metabolism" could technically fit the definition he provided for "spirit", it is obviously not what he means, or what is usually meant by, the word. As he says, the context should have eliminated metabolism as a possibility.

As an emergent property of the living system, the "vital essence" of life could easily be considered metabolism, along with respiration, etc. We've had discussions about this before on RF, which is the reason why it was mentioned in the other thread that set off this OP.

 

[Falvlun]

As an emergent property of the living system, the "vital essence" of life could easily be considered metabolism, along with respiration, etc. We've had discussions about this before on RF, which is the reason why it was mentioned in the other thread that set off this OP.

I think "easily be considered" is overselling your point. Have you honestly ever seen it considered as such anywhere besides RF? Before that thread, was anyone really thinking "you know what? I think I'm gonna call my metabolism my spirit because that totally makes sense."

I think we need to remember that things can be a bit over-thought in philosophical discussions.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think "easily be considered" is overselling your point. Have you honestly ever seen it considered as such anywhere besides RF? Before that thread, was anyone really thinking "you know what? I think I'm gonna call my metabolism my spirit because that totally makes sense."

I think we need to remember that things can be a bit over-thought in philosophical discussions.

Not that the OP wasn't overselling his/her point, either...You might want to read up about how scientists and philosophers a couple hundred years ago (there wasn't really a difference until then) talked about the life force, the spirit, the animating principle, etc. Historically, the term meant breath, and historically, it applied to all the facets of life--respiration, ingestion, motility, digestion, etc.

Sure, it's possible to overthink things...but then, some people don't think enough about things and start commenting on subjects other people just might know more about.

Making a simplistic, generalized complaint about other peoples' "sophistry" is just plain stupid in my mind. It's not a good way to engage in a good discussion with people. Instead of talking directly to the individuals who uttered those statements, to start a new thread to complain in general, where lots of people can call you out for doing the exact thing you're complaining about...well, you should expect the kind of responses you get.