Nothing (i.e. Kant).

[Terxpahseyton]

I wish PS was less like history in tests.

 

[Mouthwash]

As Aelf identified mine was an argument concerning probability. It is shocking you missed this given that all you need to do was read each word of a 37 word post before alighting on 'probable'.

It is not fallacious to say that many people are more likely to be right than few people. But this was not actually my argument. My argument was that a group of experts -academic philosophers- are more likely to be right on the subject in which they are expert than a lay-person; you. This is even more secure; arguably, it is what being expert means. Just like a group of statisticians are more likely than me to be right regarding whether I should switch door when Monty Hall asks me if I would like to so switch, academic philosophers are more likely to be right regarding a subject on which they are expert than are you.

The value and originality of Kant's ethics is such a subject, and thus the fact that experts believe it is highly valuable and of significant originality indicates that you do not understand the aforementioned ethics.

Ah! Ad verecundiam, then.

 

[Ajidica]

Much like you, I can throw around vaguely Latin phrases.
For example:
Subviaductus Goblinoid

 

[Mouthwash]

Much like you, I can throw around vaguely Latin phrases.
For example:
Subviaductus Goblinoid

This is fun! <snip>

I don't get in any trouble if it's not in English, right?

Moderator Action: yes you will get into trouble for this. Please refrain from breaking the rules. - ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Subviaductus Goblinoid

I hope this gets a full-grown meme.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oh, and here's something you should look into.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I never liked Kant and I think the pretentious prick is overrated.
People who can't express your thoughts clearly without page long sentences shouldn't be considered great thinkers.

 

[Ajidica]

Oh, and here's something you should look into.

That would require me to actually care about the topic and not poke fun at your use of latin phrases to cover the fact you don't really have an argument.

 

[Agent327]

OP

I suggest you take a philosophical course on Kant or a course in philosophy sec. (Or simply give up on philosophy period.) Having read Kant, I did not find him that difficult at all. Compared to modern philosophers (i.e. 20th century and after) his formulations aren't half as seemingly incomprehensible as they seem to appear to you.

I never liked Kant and I think the pretentious prick is overrated.
People who can't express your thoughts clearly without page long sentences shouldn't be considered great thinkers.

Not 'liking' Kant is tantamount to not understanding Kant. And Kant's formulations are quite a bit clearer than your own.

 

[GoodGame]

So is this a discussion about writing style, or about ideas?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I never liked Kant and I think the pretentious prick is overrated.
People who can't express your thoughts clearly without page long sentences shouldn't be considered great thinkers.

I always thought that was just how Germans wrote.

 

[Borachio]

I quite liked the OP. I had no particular difficulty understanding it. I thought it clear and well written, though a little bit bombastic.

Philosophy I've never really taken to, as I'm extremely lazy - in action and in thinking.

Proust, too, wrote page-long sentences.

I thought it, the thread, was about nihilism. Dunno. Is Kant nihilistic? I've never read him and usually confuse the name with Calvin. Whom I've never read either. (Because there's a an "a" and an "n" and a k-sound in both, I suppose. No good reason, I know.)

 

[Leoreth]

The funny thing about the OP is that it both wants to mimic Kant in saying nothing with lots of words and at the same time make the point that Kant says nothing with lots of words, thus saying something, which kind of ruins the whole exercise.

The lack of further arguments is balanced out by smugly throwing out smartass Latin phrases, though.

I always thought that was just how Germans wrote.

In the 18th century. And someone from the country that produced James Joyce shouldn't point fingers there anyway

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Not 'liking' Kant is tantamount to not understanding Kant. And Kant's formulations are quite a bit clearer than your own.

Oh, come on ! I didn't work on that sentence, I wrote it during breakfast, a couple of minutes before leaving for work. At some point I forgot if I wanted to go with If you can't express your thoughts and People who can't express their thougts.
Could happen to anyone.

 

[warpus]

The funny thing about the OP is that it both wants to mimic Kant in saying nothing with lots of words and at the same time make the point that Kant says nothing with lots of words, thus saying something, which kind of ruins the whole exercise.

Google it.. It's just something someone else wrote.. It shows up on 2 other forums.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but a bit of research adds a bit of context.

 

[WindFish]

Google it.. It's just something someone else wrote.. It shows up on 2 other forums.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but a bit of research adds a bit of context.

So its just a wall o text copypasta?

I'm disappointed in the OP

 

[Mouthwash]

Google it.. It's just something someone else wrote.. It shows up on 2 other forums.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but a bit of research adds a bit of context.

And how, pray tell, do you determine that I'm not those two posters?

 

[Mouthwash]

The funny thing about the OP is that it both wants to mimic Kant in saying nothing with lots of words and at the same time make the point that Kant says nothing with lots of words, thus saying something, which kind of ruins the whole exercise.

The lack of further arguments is balanced out by smugly throwing out smartass Latin phrases, though.

Hey, those are the "official" fallacy terms.

 

[lovett]

Ah! Ad verecundiam, then.

Hey, those are the "official" fallacy terms.

And an argument from authority is, as you evidently do not know, not a fallacy. Specifically, it is not a fallacy when couched in probabilistic terms and the authority appealed to constitute a body of experts; people who know about the issue in question.

Perhaps you would do better to engage in some actual analytic thinking instead of throwing around Latin phrases. This might also help you understand Kant.

 

[ParkCungHee]

In the 18th century.

And the 19th. Marx, Hegel etc.

And someone from the country that produced James Joyce shouldn't point fingers there anyway

True, but I always thought it was a result of translating German into English.