Show Menu
Cheatography
  1. Home >
  2. Games and Hobbies >

philosophy Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

helpful notation for the love of wisdom.

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

/

  

Argument from ignorance

{X} is false because you cannot prove that {X} is true.
{X} is true because you cannot prove that {X} is false.

Appeal to authority (Ad verecu­ndiam)

x: an expert in field y
z: x’s position on some issue that does not fall under field y
form of the fallacy: According to x, who’s an authority on y. Therefore, z is true.

Against the person (Ad hominem)

It is a type or irrelevant conclu­sion. Ad hominem seeks to attack someones positon by attacking the character or personal traits of the opponent rather than the argument. Such an attack is based on prejudice or feelings that are irrelevant to the argument.
X claims Y
The circum­stances or character of person {X} are unsati­sfa­ctory, or does not act according to {Y}. Therefore, claim {Y} is implau­sible or unlikely.
Abusive ad hominem fallacy - “The minister for transport is an arrogant, detestable person, so his solutions to solving traffic are deluded’. (There is no correl­ation between the two, one is basing the conclusion based on the dislike of the person.)
Ad hominem: the circum­sta­ntial form - “The mayor just bought a bicycle and wants to use it. Of course, that is his motivation to turn the town centre into a no-traffic area!”
this attacks the motivation of an opponent claiming it’s a result of personal circum­stances leading to a bias in that persons judgement*

Begging the question (Circulus in demons­trando)

“God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because God wrote it”
The fallacy, also known as arguing in a circle. The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument assume the position that is in the question without proof.
X because Y, Y because X = (circular reasoning)

appeal to emotion (ad passiones)

“father Christmas must be a real person. It would be so sad if he wasn’t.”
the fallacy of appeal to emotion is committed when someone tries to manipulate emotions to make their case rather than building a valid rational argument. Such appeal to emotion may invoke: fear, hatred, happiness, pity, sadness and pride.

appeal to majority (ad populum)

An example of this in advert­ising is: “50,00­0,000 Elvis fans can’t be wrong”
The fallacy concludes that a propos­ition must be true because many or most people believe it.
Most people believe that X is true. Therefore, X must be true.
“The majority chose this govern­ment. The majority is always right, therefore everything this government does is right.”

appeal to pity (ad miseri­cor­diam)

“The woman should not be found guilty, since it would break her poor children’s hearts to see their mother taken to prison,” (The sob story or the Galileo argument)
The fallacy is committed when someone tries to win an argument by exploiting the other persons feelings of pity or guilt.
{X} is true because not {X} would be too sad a state of affairs

appeal to force (argum­entum ad baculum)

“I am right. Agree with me or I will break your legs!”
the fallacy (might is right) is committed when either force or threat of force is used in an attempt to justify a conclu­sion.
{X} is true. Either you accept it or you will get hurt.
“I know it is not part of your duties, but form now on you also need to start cleaning toilets. If you don’t, I will have to start looking for someone to take your place.”

irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

“Polar bears can’t be dangerous because they are cute.”
The fallacy: An irrelevant conclusion happens when the conclusion proved by the author is not the one the author initially tried to prove.
{X} therefore {Y} Where {X is irrelevant in concluding that Y.

irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi)

“Polar bears can’t be dangerous because they are cute.”
The fallacy: An irrelevant conclusion happens when the conclusion proved by the author is not the one the author initially tried to prove.
{X} therefore {Y} Where {X} is irrelevant in concluding that {Y}.
 

why?

Aside from it being an obviously good foundation to pursue the practice of law, the study of philosophy is almost like an agility training exercise for the brain.


Founda­tions of reasoning and logic train the brain to bend, twist, and think in directions that it is not used to thinking. It almost seems like these guys can intuit­ively see and predict things that others cannot. It's like extrap­olating numerical data based on a set of known values, however it isn't numerical but empirical.


Assimilate it to breaking down a large project into smaller manageable pieces. Philosophy trains you to break down a simple thought or idea into smaller manageable pieces and by doing so having a well-r­ounded unders­tanding of what that really is on a multi-­faceted level. If you're a philos­opher at your core this is the way you view the world without even having to think about it, it's second nature to you to break everything down in this way.