Well, de facto, you are wrong. A pioneer of the theory behind “reasonable discussion” ( something we do here, on the forums – hence why I asked you whether you understood what the forums are about ), Aristotle, clearly states in “Rhetoric” that a prerequiste for a sound discussion is a statement that involves three elements: pathos, ethos and logos. Logos element is what you would call a “reasonable” or “evidencing” part.
Cheers
fo·rum noun \?fo?r-?m\
: a meeting at which a subject can be discussed
: a place or opportunity for discussing a subject
Yet, no where in the definition of a forum is “reasonable” discussion a given. It is assumed, but not technically required.
While it is true that nothing is solved without reasonable, rational conversation, that does not mean that all conversations are. Or that all participants will adhere to such. It is only an assumption on your part
Cheers
Well, you are wrong, again. In “Rhetoric”, Aristotle clearly dwells on the second part of the definition you have given us here – that of “discussing a matter/issue etc.”. And indeed, the requirement ( not an assumption ) is an argument including “logos”, i.e. reasonable part.
It is always a rewarding exercise to get to know the works of such great minds like that of Aristotle.
Best regards
Which is a work based on the art of persuasion. While it is true that it’s principles and theories can be applied to typical conversation, the average person is not going to be acquainted with such. To the average person, a typical conversation is not a form of art, as “Rhetoric” turns it into. Your point is moot, as we are not dancing this conversation based on the theories and principles of Aristotle. We are not having a philosophical debate here…
Most people would likely simply write you off as not worth their time, educated or otherwise, throwing around such things. You know what they say about people that drop names and use big words simply for the sake of using them…
This time you are right. Most people would likely simply write me off here as, just like you put it nicely, they are not acquainted with such things that go beyond their Harry Potter books or alikes. Therefore, I am extremely thankful for this conversation that you have pleased me with. You wouldn’t believe how difficult it is to find anyone here who would go beyond the usual “you are stupid, I know better” stuff.
Thanks again and enjoy your evening!
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Well, de facto, you are wrong. A pioneer of the theory behind “reasonable discussion” ( something we do here, on the forums – hence why I asked you whether you understood what the forums are about ), Aristotle, clearly states in “Rhetoric” that a prerequiste for a sound discussion is a statement that involves three elements: pathos, ethos and logos. Logos element is what you would call a “reasonable” or “evidencing” part.
Cheers
fo·rum noun \?fo?r-?m\
: a meeting at which a subject can be discussed
: a place or opportunity for discussing a subject
Yet, no where in the definition of a forum is “reasonable” discussion a given. It is assumed, but not technically required.
While it is true that nothing is solved without reasonable, rational conversation, that does not mean that all conversations are. Or that all participants will adhere to such. It is only an assumption on your part
Cheers
Well, you are wrong, again. In “Rhetoric”, Aristotle clearly dwells on the second part of the definition you have given us here – that of “discussing a matter/issue etc.”. And indeed, the requirement ( not an assumption ) is an argument including “logos”, i.e. reasonable part.
It is always a rewarding exercise to get to know the works of such great minds like that of Aristotle.
Best regards
Which is a work based on the art of persuasion. While it is true that it’s principles and theories can be applied to typical conversation, the average person is not going to be acquainted with such. To the average person, a typical conversation is not a form of art, as “Rhetoric” turns it into. Your point is moot, as we are not dancing this conversation based on the theories and principles of Aristotle. We are not having a philosophical debate here…
Most people would likely simply write you off as not worth their time, educated or otherwise, throwing around such things. You know what they say about people that drop names and use big words simply for the sake of using them…
This time you are right. Most people would likely simply write me off here as, just like you put it nicely, they are not acquainted with such things that go beyond their Harry Potter books or alikes. Therefore, I am extremely thankful for this conversation that you have pleased me with. You wouldn’t believe how difficult it is to find anyone here who would go beyond the usual “you are stupid, I know better” stuff.
Thanks again and enjoy your evening!
Not a problem =)
It’s fun to have an actual conversation with someone on occasion, and sates my need to argue (win, lose, or otherwise). Of course, the first time you dropped ‘Aristotle’ into the conversation, I laughed so hard I cried. You probably lost 90% of people right there.
Still, I’m going to go bother someone else for the time being… Still got 4 hours of work left…. ^.^;
Don’t look at me like that. Whatever you’ve heard, it’s probably not true.
Well, de facto, you are wrong. A pioneer of the theory behind “reasonable discussion” ( something we do here, on the forums – hence why I asked you whether you understood what the forums are about ), Aristotle, clearly states in “Rhetoric” that a prerequiste for a sound discussion is a statement that involves three elements: pathos, ethos and logos. Logos element is what you would call a “reasonable” or “evidencing” part.
Cheers
fo·rum noun \?fo?r-?m\
: a meeting at which a subject can be discussed
: a place or opportunity for discussing a subject
Yet, no where in the definition of a forum is “reasonable” discussion a given. It is assumed, but not technically required.
While it is true that nothing is solved without reasonable, rational conversation, that does not mean that all conversations are. Or that all participants will adhere to such. It is only an assumption on your part
Cheers
Well, you are wrong, again. In “Rhetoric”, Aristotle clearly dwells on the second part of the definition you have given us here – that of “discussing a matter/issue etc.”. And indeed, the requirement ( not an assumption ) is an argument including “logos”, i.e. reasonable part.
It is always a rewarding exercise to get to know the works of such great minds like that of Aristotle.
Best regards
Which is a work based on the art of persuasion. While it is true that it’s principles and theories can be applied to typical conversation, the average person is not going to be acquainted with such. To the average person, a typical conversation is not a form of art, as “Rhetoric” turns it into. Your point is moot, as we are not dancing this conversation based on the theories and principles of Aristotle. We are not having a philosophical debate here…
Most people would likely simply write you off as not worth their time, educated or otherwise, throwing around such things. You know what they say about people that drop names and use big words simply for the sake of using them…
This time you are right. Most people would likely simply write me off here as, just like you put it nicely, they are not acquainted with such things that go beyond their Harry Potter books or alikes. Therefore, I am extremely thankful for this conversation that you have pleased me with. You wouldn’t believe how difficult it is to find anyone here who would go beyond the usual “you are stupid, I know better” stuff.
Thanks again and enjoy your evening!
Not a problem =)
It’s fun to have an actual conversation with someone on occasion, and sates my need to argue (win, lose, or otherwise). Of course, the first time you dropped ‘Aristotle’ into the conversation, I laughed so hard I cried. You probably lost 90% of people right there.
Still, I’m going to go bother someone else for the time being… Still got 4 hours of work left…. ^.^;
Haha, well… I do think that the works of Aristotle are just pure genius, hence, whenever an occasion arises for them to be used, I do that!^^
Thanks that you did not abandon me at that time, haha. Well, time for me to focus on some uni things now…:/
Enjoy your evening and best regards, again!
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
I still enjoy the game allot. That said my guild has about 400 members of witch at least 370 never logged in for over 8 months now and the remaining 30 are only one a few hours a week.
The high pop servers are still going strong but how many of them are new players and how many are old players ?
At this stage though its still hard to see Guild wars 2’s future i for one wont stop playing it.
I recently levelled a character for about 10 levels. I played during multiple evenings in the Sylvari starter zone – not even some remote area like Iron Marches. Without hyperbole, on my High server I can count the encounters with other human players during those entire time on one hand.
But I guess the solution to that is staging another Living Story event for two weeks there. /s
I’m looking for a new game to play. Much of my guild is leaving the game because of the dev team and the lack of meaningful content. My own distaste for arena net not taking responsibility for the problems they create is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not interested in Wild Star personally. Just doesn’t look like its for me. But I am on the hunt for a new MMO that I can call home. I’m going to really miss the necromancer from GW1. I would keep playing GW1 over GW2 if the devs actually updated it, but I’m afraid that there isn’t anything really left for me there either. Arena Net has made it abundantly clear that this game isn’t designed for me or anyone in my guild anymore. So I am taking the hint. I’m not threatening to leave. I am just leaving. But I thought everyone should know why.
I still enjoy the game allot. That said my guild has about 400 members of witch at least 370 never logged in for over 8 months now and the remaining 30 are only one a few hours a week.
The high pop servers are still going strong but how many of them are new players and how many are old players ?
At this stage though its still hard to see Guild wars 2’s future i for one wont stop playing it.
I recently levelled a character for about 10 levels. I played during multiple evenings in the Sylvari starter zone – not even some remote area like Iron Marches. Without hyperbole, on my High server I can count the encounters with other human players during those entire time on one hand.
But I guess the solution to that is staging another Living Story event for two weeks there. /s
Well me and my friends will not stop playing GW2 becouse of Wildstar or ESO
IMO
- Wildstar looks awful and is nothing like GW2 so I just don’t get it how people even can compare it.
- ESO looks okay but combat looks stale and boring and I can’t imagine how PvP will work. And why I won’t even try it is becouse I don’t like the Elderscrolls games at all.
What we all can do is wait and see, but I know population in GW2 will decrease during the release of these games becouse of hype but what will happen efter a mounth or two is for the future to tell.
Member of Alpha Swedish Gaming Community – http://www.alphas.se/
Guild Leader of Alpha Sgc [ASGC]
