How do you identify logical thinking from sophistry in the Absence of Objective Truth?
This might sound stupid but it has been bothering me for a while.
>>8606372
>anti-realism
kys
>>8606377
Elaborate
>>8606372
Spoiler: there is no distinction. Sophistry is logical thinking. You just got spooked by Plato.
>>8606418
>You just got spooked by Plato.
Is there anyone you i trust?
>>8606372
Sophistry is logical thinking too, just the basic assumptions on which the logical construct is build upon, are wrong.
>>8606372
It does sound stupid but that's no surprise coming from a tripfag. Fuck off to a different website.
Logical thinking brings something after something else. I relate one sentence with another, and another. You can tell when they contradict or agree with each other. What does not exist is the certainty in that first gap between what you're saying and what is, because whatever it is, you can only know how you perceive it at a certain time and place. Not only that, you can only speak of it using the language that you know.
Your question seems to be "what do I have as standard to compare the two?". And point being, there is nothing to compare except what they say with what they say.
If we do not know objective truth, then we will face difficulty in trying to identify sophistry among truth.
If object truth is absent, then there is no identity.
Logic and lies are then equally lacking in truth without a ruling truth that can identify them.
Dialectics.
You can't hope for objective truth, but you can strive for it, that's logic. Sophistry operates on a set of preconceived notions, you aren't looking for truth (or its closest approximation), but for a justification
>>8606372
>logic
Gay, unfunny, for fags
>sophistry
Cool