Inconvenience

Critique is in the opinion of a philosopher.  He masters it before he realizes it has any worth.

- Marco

To keep it simple: if an argument (all or any) fails to have a contradiction in it, is flawed.

My example to this is two-fold:

1- there are two foreign polar opposite arguments

2- both arguments have contradictions as opposed to the other which doesn't.

3- if both arguments have contradictions and the other does not (I have created a syllogism)

The above syllogism is false.

You may have detected it. You may have, or - you may have not.

My point is there is language I used in this message to display a contradiction to see if you could find it.

The parable in this manufacturing of a fallacy committed, is that I can recreate the syllogism to accurately depict what I mean.

The new form of argument is as follows:

1- there are two foreign polar opposite arguments.

2- both arguments have contradictions as opposed to the other which does not carry a contradiction.

3- the question now should read: that if both arguments carry contradictions (but the other does not...) why would I displace my predicate use of logic to state that BOTH have contradictions.

The above now means (according to #3) that there is an entirely separate argument(s) that I have not mentioned already. Either because I am being deliberately ambiguous or implementing a cause to further my point. This is a problem. Now I can answer why? What is the problem?

That if we are under the impression of thought/argumentation as empirically governed, then, and therefore: we have to criticize the elements of any established argument. This is true.

But as I stated in my syllogisms:

That if any argument to be true of itself is not tested for - empirically?

Does this in turn make it true on the basis that we are testing its validity.

This is where (as I stated in the beginning)....

To examine any argument in critique of that argument - we are trying to find if it in fact has both true and false elements. Not that one argument in its entirety whether empirically valid or not, is full proof.

Conclusion:

That if you take an argument - you find one (argument) is without contradiction as opposed to another (argument) on the same subject which does have contradiction in it. Which of the two is a valid? My argument suggests that the answer is the argument you find contradiction in is a valid form of argument (because the argument without contradiction) is improbable to find. Like I said: an argument without finding contradiction can only be flawed. The answer is in that same sentence.

- Marco Almeida