Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In philosophy, nihilism (/ ˈ n aɪ (h) ɪ l ɪ z əm, ˈ n iː-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is any viewpoint, or a family of views, that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence, [1] [2] namely knowledge, morality, or meaning.
Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no objective meaning or purpose. [1] The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create their own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".
Eristic was a type of "question-and-answer" [3] teaching method popularized by the Sophists, such as Euthydemos and Dionysiodoros.Students learned eristic arguments to "refute their opponent, no matter whether he [said] yes or no in answer to their initial question".
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised. [23] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
The word collective most of them can't bring themselves to use—except to describe foreign countries or organizations they don't work for—but they are keenly aware of how much more deeply beholden they are to organization than were their elders. They are wry about it, to be sure; they talk of the "treadmill," the "rat race," of the inability ...
Most often, pleonasm is understood to mean a word or phrase which is useless, clichéd, or repetitive, but a pleonasm can also be simply an unremarkable use of idiom.It can aid in achieving a specific linguistic effect, be it social, poetic or literary.
Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts.
Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. As a consequence, the argument becomes a matter of faith and fails to persuade those who don't already accept it.