wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.


I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was
deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my
comment or the links.

You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a
relativistic statement.

--
Nom=de=Plume