The rod and the staff

 Proclaiming opinions — without arguments to support them — is rhetorics, not philosophy.

Just because.

What is a meta-claim: "rhetoric is not argument" ??

Such fallacy is in conjunction with the same feud. = That rhetoric without philosophy (philosophy acting as an ends) makes for philosophy a thing in itself. (i.e. through useful rhetoric) My point is that philosophy as rhetoric is a thing that makes argumentation a possibility through useful facts. Not just random. (Not simply devices that act rhetorically sound.) Opinions can be stated philosophically and act as factual. Even if not rooted in fallacy.

My second point is that as mentioned: rhetorically sound (random) opinion do carry validity if the philosophy is done with acuity.

It is the same principle that metaphysics applies apriorism to philosophy... there is no disputing this. Metaphysics if applied theoretically sound is a rhetorical acuity. It has to be that presupposition is rooted in philosophy, therefore the detection of cheating.

- Marco

============

Many don’t know the difference between:

• thought

• opinion

• belief

• fact

==============

Then tell us. They all are fallen terms based on assumption. They are derivatives to one another. Thoughts are independent of virtue. Opinions are isolated from facts. Beliefs are attributed to conceptually driven ideas. Facts are lawfully given to credit what is empirically sound.

Even if we disagree.

- Marco