Philosophy students

>>2955724
Have a basic yet solid understanding of reasoning, logic and argumentation. A very faint understanding and knowledge about the history of philosophy may help if you want to contextualize the content but that's not something often needed.

I'm going to shill the fuck out of Reason and Argument by Richard Feldman since there's no reason for someone conducting any kind of intellectual work wouldn't read it.

>This text presents a clear and philosophically sound method for identifying, interpreting, and evaluating arguments as they appear in non-technical sources. It focuses on a more functional, real-world goal of argument analysis as a tool for figuring out what is reasonable to believe rather than as an instrument of persuasion. Methods are illustrated by applying them to arguments about different topics as they appear in a variety of contexts e.g., newspaper editorials and columns, short essays, informal reports of scientific results, etc.

Learning the language it was written in

>>2955747
Why do you divide reasoning, logic and argumentation? It´s the same. For example:
>Tell me the reason Peter or X why do you want to sleep?
>Peter says: Everybody who is tired wants to sleep. I am tired. Thus i want to sleep.

This is logic, argumentation, reasoning.

>>2955724

Yes.

Skim and look for passages that confirm your existing beliefs. Then copy them to lend authority to your case in arguments.

>>2956353
Yeah, very eloquent you fucking mong. Don't ask about English intricacies if you can't speak the language.

>>2956497
>Definition of argumentation: The action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory. Synonyms of argumentation : reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case.
>Definition of logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Synonyms to logic: science of reasoning, science of deduction, science of thought, dialectics, argumentation, ratiocination.
>Definition of reasoning: The action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

Know your definitions. Start off with a thinker you agree with. You need to understand Spinoza and then Hegel to actually work seriously. Know your history of thoughts, know the context around the book.

File: 1497063708912.jpg (142KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 450x450px

>>2957208
>You need to understand Spinoza and then Hegel to actually work seriously.

>>2957215
*tips individual liberties, objective realities and other worthless spooks*
Don't ridicule a proper methodology.

I tend to just read it and check if I understand every line, then move on.

I didn't think I learned anything, but after reading all socratic dialoges I noticed I started behaving like a dickhead and became pro voter restriction

>>2955724
I take the best out of it and throw the rest in the trash can called oblivion.

>>2957208
Why with one I agree with?

Philosophy grad student here. I read articles more than I read books. And the books I do read are more like book-length articles.

As far as reading techniques I read everything multiple times. Initial first pass to get the lay of the land. Second pass involves high-lighting and note-taking. Third pass involves short ~1000 word paper about it.
>>2957208
>You need to understand Spinoza and then Hegel to actually work seriously.
lol wut? Besides a select few people in my program who like the moderns and Germans as hobby reading, no one these days reads that stuff. But then again, I role with the analytic people.

File: download.jpg (14KB, 350x144px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 350x144px

*roll

>>2957047
A couple points for your consideration:
1) Convincing arguments aren't necessarily valid (e.g., cognition implies existence).
2) Logical arguments aren't always true (e.g., If I post on 4chan, I like anime. I am posting on 4chan, so I must like anime.)
3) Being able to arrive at a point by means of reasoning doesn't mean you can express it in a convincing form (see: every post ever made on /his/).

>>2959070
I know. The logical form can be used for lies, errors and insane thoughts as well as for thruth as it should be only, e.g. a schizo can use it this way: P1 If there is someone other in my head, then he knows all my secrets. P2 There is someone other in my head. C Thus someone other knows all my secrets.
Thus using logic is not enough to prove something, you or we or all have to check on the producing process of premises to "see"
if the premises are true. If someone hallucinates and makes a premise out of it, like that schizo, it leads to wrong conclusions that have only a correct form. To make a premise all have to experience something, but this experience or sensation can be delusional. It´s like in the Rush song : Show don´t tell.
By the way: cognition implies the existence of cognition. And what one or many find convincing is not what all find convincing, some may say: why do you believe this shit.