General

Enas:
I dont need to understand you in order to understand if and how my logic is faulty.

FatGTP:
That's called a logical circularity, and that exactly illustrates where your problem lies, thanks.

Enas:
By "logical circularity" you mean this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Enas:
By "logical circularity" you mean this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


FatGTP:
The pernicious part is that you yourself are trapped in it. Even if Wikipedia explains the mechanism to you in detail, you'll struggle to recognize what it describes within your flawed thesis. That, too, is inherent to the situation.

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.

Enas:
I will take this as a yes just because what you said earlier sounded like it is what i linked.

So, by definition, circular reasoning requires 2 assertions. One must necesarily be a premise and the other, again must necesarily be, the conclusion. But in what i said, for which you accused me of circular reasoning, i only made one assertion, not two. That means it is definetely not circular reasoning. So this accusation falls apart.

In fact, just because it was a single assertion and not an argument to begin with, it cannot constitute any kind of logical fallacy. Assertions by themselves cannot be fallacious. All they can be is true, or false.

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.

Enas:
I will take this as a yes just because what you said earlier sounded like it is what i linked.

So, by definition, circular reasoning requires 2 assertions. One must necesarily be a premise and the other, again must necesarily be, the conclusion. But in what i said, for which you accused me of circular reasoning, i only made one assertion, not two. That means it is definetely not circular reasoning. So this accusation falls apart.

In fact, just because it was a single assertion and not an argument to begin with, it cannot constitute any kind of logical fallacy. Assertions by themselves cannot be fallacious. All they can be is true, or false.

FatGTP:
You are clearly overlooking the implicit assumptions you rely on. That's why the circularity is invisible to you. It will be difficult to help you from the outside as long as you keep confirming those assumptions to yourself.

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.

Enas:
I will take this as a yes just because what you said earlier sounded like it is what i linked.

So, by definition, circular reasoning requires 2 assertions. One must necesarily be a premise and the other, again must necesarily be, the conclusion. But in what i said, for which you accused me of circular reasoning, i only made one assertion, not two. That means it is definetely not circular reasoning. So this accusation falls apart.

In fact, just because it was a single assertion and not an argument to begin with, it cannot constitute any kind of logical fallacy. Assertions by themselves cannot be fallacious. All they can be is true, or false.

FatGTP:
You are clearly overlooking the implicit assumptions you rely on. That's why the circularity is invisible to you. It will be difficult to help you from the outside as long as you keep confirming those assumptions to yourself.

Enas:
I would again ask you to elaborate but this is getting boring. You are no longer engaging with the thread.

I explained why it is impossible, for what i said earlier, to be circular reasoning, and you completely ignoring that.

Instead you prefer to act mystical, just like oftentimes, intelectual people tend to hide behind complicated terminology. I know that because you accuse and assert things without really elaborating what you mean.

Munchies:
In a rare turn of events, I am deeply invested in Enas's famous logic and philosophy session.

Watching him debate FatGTP is. Proving to be fun.