Philosophy 105: Philosophical Thinking Theodore Gracyk

BASIC FALLACIES Ad Hominem (a kind of irrelevant RESPONSE)  Shifting Conclusions  Changing Meanings  Distraction (Red Herring)  Pseudo-questions  Appeal to Dubious Authority  Slippery Slope  Attacking a Straw Man (a kind of irrelevant RESPONSE)  Emotional Appeals  False Dilemma Ad Hominem (Personal Attack or Attacking the Person) The fallacy of responding to an opponent's argument by changing the subject to the person who gave the subject, introducing the false assumption that a person of this sort cannot offer an argument worth considering. One can deflect attention from the arguer's position by shifting to discussion of the arguer's personality, character, associates, motives, intentions, qualifications, and so on. Example: "Ignore what Professor Schiff says about the origins of the Old Testament. I happen to know that Schiff is an atheist." When we attack the person, we ignore the content of the argument. But an argument is a relationship between premises and conclusion, and the argument's soundness (or lack of soundness) is completely independent of who is giving the argument. "There is nothing to what Smith says about the Nazi death camps; just remember that his family included prominent Nazis" may sound convincing, but this refusal to look at Smith's evidence is a refusal to evaluate the soundness of the argument. (After all, Smith may be ashamed of her relatives and might be confirming the existence of the death camps against anti-Semitic opponents who argue that the camps are a hoax.)  Given this definition, the fallacy is restricted to cases where there is an opponent and where one is responding to that opponent.  Recognition of the fallacy of attacking the person DOES NOT DENY OR CONFLICT WITH the legitimate need to evaluate the source of information that is put into an argument. Consider these two cases:  "In thinking about Green's conclusions about human impacts on the Amazon basin, don't accept Green's claim that the region has only two million people. Green used an encyclopedia from 1955 that he bought in a junk store."  "Don't accept Johnson's predictions about productivity in her report. I work at the desk next to her and I heard her saying she couldn't get the research done on time, so she just made up new numbers after looking at last year's report."  These responses to Green and Johnson are perfectly appropriate, since they are calling arguments into question by questioning sources of information in the arguments. They are pointing to flaws in the argument by discussing sources of specific premises, not dismissing the whole argument by appeal to facts about Green and Johnson. Similarly, discussing someone's trustworthiness or expertise is always relevant if we are evaluating testimony.  A special case of Ad Hominem is phony refutation, in which one dismisses an argument or position by citing inconsistency between the speaker's words and actions. Inconsistency is a fallacy when the inconsistency is between two parts of an argument, but inconsistency between words and actions may be due to understandable moral weakness or to a legitimate change in one's position.  Example "How can you advise me to wait until I'm older? I happen to know that you were pretty wild at my age."  Example: "How can you tell me not to smoke? You smoke two packs a day." Example: "How can support a crackdown on underage drinking? I remember at time when you thought that such policies were a waste of money."  Yes, and the first speaker may regret that "wild" youth and may be offering you hard-earned advice that is worth your consideration. The smoker who advises you against smoking may have tried to quit many times, and is warning you of what you face if you make the mistake of starting. The third speaker may now understand, through personal experience, that underage drinking is a serious social problem, and has revised their thinking about the topic.  The Latin name for phony refutation is Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. Informally, it's known as the "You Too Fallacy." Shifting Conclusions  The problem of being unclear about what you are actually attempting to prove in an argument, or stating your conclusion in slightly different ways, so that arguments supporting one version do not really apply to others. Changing Meanings or Equivocation As with many of the fallacies, equivocation is only a fallacy if we first establish that it takes place within a context of reasoning! People equivocate all the time, but it doesn't have the status of a fallacy unless they are engaged in reasoning (in leading someone to a conclusion). The fallacy requires the following: A word or phrase is used that has two distinct meanings. We can state paraphrase both, that is, we can say how the two uses differ. The word or phrase clearly means one thing the first time it is used, but means the other thing the next time that it is used. (This shift in meaning can be a shift from the meaning between the first premise and the second, or between a premise and the conclusion.) The fallacy can be intentional or unintentional. In the former case, the person giving the argument misleads the audience by exploiting the equivocation. In the second case, the speaker does not try to mislead, but the audience draws an unsound conclusion by misinterpreting statements that can be taken two different ways. Example: John has catholic interests: he likes sports, science, mystery novels, and silent films. Most Catholics go to mass on a regular basis, so John probably goes to mass on a regular basis. Analysis: The first premise uses 'catholic' with a lower case 'c', meaning broad or universal. The second uses an upper case 'C', meaning the religion. Since the two premises are true according to different interpretations of the term, there has been a change of subject and the two premises do not connect to make a strong pattern. It is unsound. Example: In this country, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Since my trial has not yet reached the verdict stage, I'm innocent. Analysis: Pretty silly! In reality, one is or isn't innocent quite apart from the jury's verdict. One is merely treated as innocent until proven guilty (it's a statement about the burden of proof in law, not a statement of fact). One can't go from the legal principle to a claim of real innocence. When the equivocation is created by a punctuation error or error in grammatical construction, the fallacy is technically known as the fallacy of amphiboly. Real example: Jared Blair, manager of a Hooters Restaurant in Panama City Beach,  told the waitresses at the restaurant that the company would reward the one who sold the most beer during April with a "new Toyota." At the end of April, Blair told employee Jodee Berry that she'd won. When Berry was led blindfolded to the parking lot to claim her prize, she got a new "toy-Yoda" Star Wars doll instead of the promised car, the suit contends. Berry has sued the Restaurant. (For the complete news article, click here.) Analysis: Berry alleges breach of contract. If her claims are true, it is clear that Blair is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, for choosing wording that would mislead the waitresses.  Red Herring (Lack of Relevance) The fallacy of introducing, as reasons for one's position, a topic that is not directly related to the issue originally being debated. In effect, the arguer starts on one topic, changes the subject, and then proceeds as if there has been no change in subject. Supposedly, the fallacy is known as "red herring" on an analogy with escaped convicts who might smear herring (a smelly fish) on themselves to throw bloodhounds off their trail. Real Example: "No, no, he's a friend of mine. He's not a moron at all -- he's a friend. I had a good time with him today." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, responding to reports that his chief spokesman had called President George W. Bush a moron. (Newsweek, 2 Dec. 2002) Analysis: Perhaps it's true that Bush is his friend. Perhaps it's true that they had a good time together. What has that information got to do with answering the charge that Bush is a moron? Chretien is changing the subject instead of talking about Bush's intelligence. Since a great many fallacies involve giving reasons that lack relevance to the issue under debate, we reserve the accusation of "red herring" to those cases where the argument fallacy is a simple change of subject, apart from one of the specialized tactics (e.g., Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Force, Straw Man, etc.) Pseudo-Question or Loaded Question  The fallacy of biasing an exchange by asking a question that has an unjustified assumption built right into the question, influencing the answer given to it. Real Example: A newspaper asks the following question of its readers: Do you think the Fargo City Commission should meddle in private property matters? Yes No I'm not sure The Forum - 05/01/2002 Daily Poll http://new.in-forum.com/  Another version of this problem is known as complex question, where two unrelated topics are combined in a single question, so that answering on part will seem to answer the other, as well.  Example: "Do you support our constitutional freedoms, such as the right of individuals to possess handguns?" Loaded question is often done by introducing a false dilemma:  Example: "Are you going to support me on this in the meeting today, or are you siding with those spineless worms on the other side?"  Dubious Authority  Often called Appeal to Authority, I prefer a title that doesn't suggest that there's a problem with appealing to authorities! It is often appropriate to defend the truth of a claim, or a recommendation of behavior, by citing the testimony or advice of some authority. The fallacy consists in citing someone who is not really an authority on the subject at issue. The Latin name for this fallacy is ad verecundiam. The fallacy takes many forms: The person cited is not an authority in any way. (Example: An advertisement shows a famous movie star endorsing an automobile. For an example, click here.)  The person cited is an authority, but not about the subject at issue.  (Example: An advertisement shows a famous scientist endorsing a computer company, as when Apple uses Albert Einstein's photo in an ad for its computers. But he died before there was such a product! A real authority on this issue would be a product testing lab, such as Consumers Report.)  (Another example: "There must be life on other planets, because my history professor says so.") The subject matter does not call for authority, but one is cited. (Example: An advertisement shows a famous actor endorsing the taste of fried chicken. We can all judge for ourselves which fried chicken is tasty.) The person cited has expertise, but there is no consensus on the particular question that is at issue. (Example: We cite Dr. X's views on the origins of the HIV virus, but since there is no consensus about this topic, Dr. X's authority settles nothing.) The source is out of date but we pretend it is still reliable. (Example: Citing the encyclopedia figure of one million people as the population of Minnesota, without noting that this edition of the encyclopedia is 40 years old.) There is not enough detail about the supposed authority to be able to specifically identify the source of the information. This is an appeal to anonymous authority. (Example: Weight loss advertisements that say that "A double-blind study showed the product to be 98% effective," without telling us who did the study, etc.) The Latin name for this fallacy is ad verecundiam. Variations of this fallacy appeal to other kinds of bogus authority, among them: Appeal to Common Practice (Bandwagon) Appeal to Common Belief   Appeal to Tradition  Provincialism (including nationalism or flag-waving)  Slippery Slope  There are two versions of this fallacy. They are both given this name because they share a common idea that taking a first step will lead us to something we don't want. It is the unjustified assumption of this idea that is the fallacy. (When the assumption is justified, there's no fallacy, even if the argument otherwise looks like any other slope.) The assumption in question is that choosing one thing leads to, or is equivalent to, choosing a second thing. But the move from the first to the second is not immediate: one leads to the other (or is shown equivalent) by a series of small, plausible steps. The result is then noted to be undesirable, and therefore (by the valid move of modus tollens), we are advised to avoid the first. Hence, the name "slippery slope," which conjures up a picture of sloped ground that is slippery. If you take even one step onto the slope, you will find yourself down on the bottom, where you may not want to be!         CLICK HERE for another illustration.          Oh, no! Watch out for that first step! The first type (where the first step leads to the second by causing it) is the causal slope. The second type (that one leads by equivalences to the second) is the semantic slope.  When there no justification (no good reason to believe) that the first step must cause the second or that the first is really equivalent, then the argument contains a fallacy.  Example of causal type: You shouldn't see any "R" rated action movies. If you do, you will expose yourself to situations that glamorize violence, and exposure will lead to your accepting it, which will lead to your own willingness to act out your violent impulses. Before you know it, you'll find yourself in court for some senseless violence that you've committed. Example of semantic type: You should always be generous when tipping in a restaurant. If you skimp at all, you may fail to adequately compensate your server, and to fail to compensate someone for their time is the same as stealing their time, and stealing someone's time is no different than forced servitude, which is just another name for slavery. If you're not generous when tipping, it's morally equivalent to participating in the slave trade. Why are these fallacies? Because in each case we can point to a "break" in the chain, a place where one step really does not take us to the next. In the first example, acceptance of fake violence does not necessitate acceptance of real violence, at least for those of us who distinguish fantasy from reality. In the second example, even if we "steal time," that's not equivalent to forced servitude. The server's job is to serve even if the customer does not tip, and the server knows that when taking the job. The customer doesn't force the server to be a server. Slippery slope is closely related to scare tactics, the difference being that the slope argument tries to hide the threat by following a series of steps before arriving at the "scary" result. Straw Man  This fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent's position in order to make your own position look more reasonable. To be blunt, it involves putting words into your opponent's mouth that your opponent would not recognize as theirs. By substituting a different position (usually much weaker than their real position), one fails to genuinely engage the opponent, and thus one hasn't really done anything to support one's own position.  The name comes from the practice of stuffing dummies and scarecrows with straw. When one attacks an opponent by putting words into the opponent's mouth, one makes up a "dummy" position. But just as beating up a scarecrow doesn't demonstrate any athletic accomplishment, beating up a "straw man" in an argument doesn't demonstrate anything. Given this definition, the fallacy of straw man is restricted to cases where there is an opponent and where one is responding to that opponent. The difficulty with spotting the fallacy is that one must know enough about the issue to know when an opponents is being misrepresented.  Example: If you vote for Smith, you're voting for a candidate who supports continuing government waste and inefficiency, continuing decline in our nation's schools, and a weakened military. Real example: "As North Dakotans, we are incensed by researchers at Rutgers University proposing that our state be turned into a part of "Buffalo Commons." Now our state legislature is in the process of placing an official seal of approval on this concept by voting to maintain a 1000-strong buffalo herd along I-94 in the hope of creating a tourist attraction. Surely, a legislature that is intent on cutting education and social services has more worthy projects for our tax dollars." (Opening of a letter to the Fargo Forum) Analysis: Staw man, twice! The Rutgers researches did not PROPOSE a Buffalo Commons (where large stretches of the plains would become nature preserves, virtually devoid of human occupation). They PREDICTED it as trend in the region. Here, a small change completely misrepresents the opponent. Then the arguer misrepresents the legislature by claiming their action will be "an official seal of approval on this concept." The real issue appears to be impending cuts in education and social services, but the straw men have no clear relationship to that issue (red herring!). Emotional Appeals  Any evaluation of an IDEA based on how it makes us FEEL is inappropriate. I may not like it that gravity limits my ability to fly without an airplane, but my disliking the truth is no argument against it! False Dilemma (Limited Options Fallacy) The fallacy of arguing by offering someone a false or implausible set of choices. In other words, an excluding possibilities argument with a false disjunction. A false dilemma is always unsound. We show that the fallacy has taken place by pointing out one or more plausible but overlooked options. Example: "Either Pat should study harder or take easier classes. Pat won't study harder, so Pat should take easier classes."  Analysis: This argument has a false dilemma because it ignores the plausible alternative that Pat might change majors, or perhaps leave school. Example: My opponent wants to extend the hunting season by starting it a week earlier. But that isn't fair to the young animals, cheating them of time to develop and making them easy targets. Instead, we should extend the season by a week.  Analysis: Fails to consider the option of "none of the above," for example, by just leaving the dates of the season alone. In this fallacy, the argument is usually valid. So this is not a "formal fallacy" (the problem is not the form of the argument).  One variation of this fallacy is known as the Black-and-White Fallacy. In this case, the arguer oversimplifies a complex situation by seeing the situation as "black and white," putting all cases into one of two extreme categories. The arguer ignores "shades of gray." (Shown the color yellow, the arguer classifies it as white because it's more like white than black!) Example: He can't be a Christian. Look, he's got tattoos!  Analysis: Implicit but false assumption: You conform to a certain "dress code" or you're not a Christian. Example: You're either a patriot or you're one of those radicals criticizing the war!  Analysis: Implicit but false assumption: there is no middle ground. Another variation is the middle ground fallacy (a.k.a. the split-the-difference fallacy). In this variation, the arguer begins the argument with a false dilemma by proposing two extreme options. Based on their extreme nature, the arguer then proposes that the reasonable option must be in the middle ground between the two, and proposes a specific third option as that middle ground. Yet this remains a false dilemma if the arguer has ignored additional options that would be alternatives (such as none of them). Example: Smith thinks that all the faculty should use Mac computers, because that's what they use in her department. Jones thinks that all the faculty should use PCs, because they're more common in industry. But neither of those plans can work. PCs lack the capacity for graphics needed by the art department, and Macs don't run all the accounting software needed in the business school. So the university should adopt the compromise: half of future computers will be Macs, and half will be PCs.

Heka (Ḥkȝ)

Hu "ḥw" in hieroglyphs

In Egyptian mythology, Hu (ḥw) is the deification of the first word, the word of creation, that Atum was said to have exclaimed uponejaculating or, alternatively, his self-castration, in his masturbatory act of creating the Ennead.

Hu and Renenutet

Hu is mentioned already in the Old Kingdom Pyramid texts (PT 251, PT 697) as companion of the deceased pharaoh. Together with Sia, he was depicted in the retinue of Thoth, with whom he was also occasionally identified.

In the Middle Kingdom, all gods participated in Hu and Sia, and were associated with Ptah who created the universe by uttering the word of creation. Hu was depicted in human shape, as a falcon, or as a man with a ram's head.

In the New Kingdom, both Hu and Sia together with Heke, Irer and Sedjem were members of the fourteen creative powers of Amun-Ra. By the time of Ptolemaic Egypt, Hu had merged with Shu (air).

References[edit]

• Wilkinson, R. H., Die Welt der Götter im Alten Ägypten. Glaube - Macht - Mythologie, Stuttgart 2003

or or
Saa in hieroglyphs

In Egyptian mythology, Sia or Saa was the deification of perception in the Heliopolitan Ennead cosmogony and is probably equivalent to the intellectual energies of the heart of Ptah in the Memphite cosmogeny.^[1] He also had a connection with writing and was often shown in anthropomorphic form ^[2] holding a papyrus scroll. This papyrus was thought to embody intellectual achievements.^[3]

It was said that Atum created the two gods Sia and Hu from his blood spilled while cutting his own penis, a possible reference to circumcision.^[4]

Sia appeared standing on the Solar barge during its journey through the night in New Kingdom underworld texts and tomb decorations,^[5] together withHu, "creative utterance" and Heka (god) the god of magic. These gods were seen as special powers helping the creator, and although Heka had his own cult Sia did not.^[6]

Hieroglyph: Sia[edit]

The Sia (hieroglyph) was also used to represent "to perceive", "to know" or "to be cognizant".

 encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Shu (Egyptian deity))

Shu
God of the wind and air
The ancient Egyptian god Shu is represented as a human with feathers on his head, as he is associated with light and air. This feather serves as the hieroglyphic sign for his name. Shu could also be represented as a lion, or with a more elaborate feathered headdress.[1]
Name inhieroglyphs
Major cult center	Heliopolis, Leontopolis
Symbol	the ostrich feather
Consort	Tefnut
Parents	Ra or Atum andIusaaset
Siblings	Tefnut Hathor Sekhmet
Offspring	Nut and Geb

Shu (/ʃuː/; meaning "emptiness" and "he who rises up") was one of the primordial gods in Egyptian mythology, a personification of air, one of the Ennead of Heliopolis.

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Family
• 2 Myths
• 3 See Also
• 4 References
• 5 Sources

Family[edit]

He was created by Atum, his father and Iusaaset, his mother in the city of Heliopolis. With his twin sister Tefnut (moisture), he was the father of Nut and Geb. His daughter, Nut, was the sky goddess whom he held over the Earth (Geb), separating the two. The Egyptians believed that if Shu didn't hold his son and daughter (the god of the earth and the goddess of the sky) apart there would be no way life could be created.

Shu's grandchildren are Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephthys. His great-grandsons are Horus and Anubis.

Myths[edit]

Shu is shown holding the sky above his head.

As the air, Shu was considered to be cooling, and thus calming, influence, and pacifier. Due to the association with air, calm, and thus Ma'at (truth, justice and order), Shu was portrayed in art as wearing an ostrich feather. Shu was seen with between one and four feathers. The ostrich feather was symbolic of light and emptiness. Fog and clouds were also Shu's elements and they were often called his bones. Because of his position between the sky and earth, he was also known as the wind.^[2]

In a much later myth, representing the terrible weather disaster at the end of the Old Kingdom, it was said that Tefnut and Shu once argued, and Tefnut left Egypt for Nubia (which was always more temperate). It was said that Shu quickly decided that he missed her, but she changed into a cat that destroyed any man or god that approached. Thoth, disguised, eventually succeeded in convincing her to return.

The Greeks associated Shu with Atlas, the primordial Titan who held up the celestial spheres,as they are both depicted holding the sky.^[3]

The air god Shu separated the sky goddess Nut from the earth god, Geb. This treatment symbolized duality, the separation of the world into opposites: above and below, light and dark, good and evil. Shu is mostly represented by a man. Only in his function as a fighter and defender as the sun god does he sometimes receive a lion's head. In Egyptian mythology, Shu arrived as breath from the nose of the original god, Atum-Ra, together with his sister and wife, Tefnut, the moist air. The first pair of cosmic elements then created thesky goddess, Nut, and the earth god, Geb, who in turn created the deities Isis, Osiris, Nephthys and Set.^[2]

He carries an ankh, the symbol of life.

Heka or He- KA (/ˈhɛkə/; Egyptian: Ḥkȝ; also spelt Hike) was the deification of magic in Egyptian mythology, his name being the Egyptian word for "magic". According to Egyptian writing (Coffin text, spell 261), Heka existed "before duality had yet come into being." The term "Heka" was also used for the practice of magical ritual. The Coptic word "hik" is derived from the Ancient Egyptian.

Heka literally means activating the Ka, the aspect of the soul which embodied personality. Egyptians thought activating the power of the soul was how magic worked. "Heka" also implied great power and influence, particularly in the case of drawing upon the Ka of the gods. Heka acted together with Hu, the principle of divine utterance, and Sia, the concept of divine omniscience, to create the basis of creative power both in the mortal world and the world of the gods.

As the one who activates Ka, Heka was also said to be the son of Atum, the creator of things in general, or occasionally the son of Khnum, who created specific individual Ba (another aspect of the soul). As the son of Khnum, his mother was said to be Menhit.

The hieroglyph for his name featured a twist of flax within a pair of raised arms; however, it also vaguely resembles a pair of entwined snakes within someone's arms. Consequently, Heka was said to have battled and conquered two serpents, and was usually depicted as a man choking two giant entwined serpents. Medicine and doctors were thought to be a form of magic, and so Heka's priesthood performed these activities.

Egyptians believed that with Heka, the activation of the Ka, an aspect of the soul of both gods and humans, (and divine personification of magic), they could influence the gods and gain protection, healing and transformation. Health and wholeness of being were sacred to Heka. There is no word for religion in the ancient Egyptian language, mundane and religious world views were not distinct; thus Heka was not a secular practice but rather a religious observance. Every aspect of life, every word, plant, animal and ritual was connected to the power and authority of the gods.^[1]

In ancient Egypt, medicine consisted of four components; the primeval potency that empowered the creator-god was identified with Heka, who was accompanied by magical rituals known asSeshaw, held within sacred texts called Rw. In addition Pekhret, medicinal prescriptions, were given to patients to bring relief. This magic was used in temple rituals as well as informal situations by priests. These rituals, along with medical practices, formed an integrated therapy for both physical and spiritual health. Magic was also used for protection against the angry deities, jealous ghosts, foreign demons and sorcerers who were thought to cause illness, accidents, poverty and infertility.^[2]