Release Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I'm confused. Is the implication of this supposed to be that when Kerry contradicts himself, he is merely engaging in "dialectical discourse," and if you criticize him for it you are a "neo-Sophist?" It is "elevating rhetoric above truth" to point out when someone contradicts themselves? This sounds like hegelian/marxist nonsense to me. Am I missing something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelangelo Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 No, it's implying that the whole Bush administration is out of line in their attempt to make Kerry look like a flip-flopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGroarty Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Is the implication of this supposed to be that when Kerry contradicts himself, he is merely engaging in "dialectical discourse," and if you criticize him for it you are a "neo-Sophist?" Those most critical of people holding discourse with themselves, dialectic or otherwise, are normally called "psychiatrists," not "neo-Sophists." Doubly so when it takes so long for either side of a one man argument to have the final say. If that's not the key to the funny here, perhaps it's in equating indecision, contradictory recollections, or constant misleading appeasement with dialectical discourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Release Posted October 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 No, it's implying that the whole Bush administration is out of line in their attempt to make Kerry look like a flip-flopper. Thats what I got out of it. It was taken from fark.com (a photoshop humor site) and it caught me off guard and I found it funny. ~Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 I still fail to understand how Kerry contradicting himself all the time is an example of dialectical discourse. It's just Kerry saying anything to anyone to get elected. To contradict one's self constantly is ridiculous. What is out of line with pointing that out, as the Bush administration has done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 I still fail to understand how Kerry contradicting himself all the time is an example of dialectical discourse. It is an equivocation: dialectic, noun 1 : LOGIC 1a(1) 2 a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas 3 : the logic of fallacy 4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite [...] What Socrates did was 2a; what Kerry is engaged in is 4a. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 To contradict one's self constantly is ridiculous... Try reading a dialectical passage of Hegel. It's pretty ridiculous, but it still gets taken seriously as philosophy--thus the above "joke." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 This "joke" is nothing more than an evasive attempt to use corrupt philosophy to confuse the issue and intellectually intimidate. Kerry contradicts himself, this is a fact. The "joke" smears anyone who identifies this fact. This is not funny; it is an insult to anyone who has respect for facts and for reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 This "joke" is nothing more than an evasive attempt to use corrupt philosophy to confuse the issue and intellectually intimidate... Exactly. That's what I was referring to, in case I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.