Philosophy

[czgibson]

Greetings,

no we cannot be sure and that is why I placed an ' if '
(ps. i wud have given the answer and no we cant be certain but then I read tht univ students answer and decided to place the 'if' as well to give the answer a condition)

normal day= normal orbital patterns, no sun being destroyed, all planets are behaving in the predicted motion, no comets hitting earth etc.

Good stuff - you're right. I've got to go right now, so I'll give you a fuller response later.

Bush studies philosophy, hmmm.

Does he? I find that very surprising. The man can hardly string a sentence together.

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Hello,

Good stuff - you're right. I've got to go right now, so I'll give you a fuller response later.

okay

Does he? I find that very surprising. The man can hardly string a sentence together.

Ive seen a documentary which shows that the majority of people appeal to stupidity, and in the end of the documentary it says something like smart people sometimes act stupid just to appeal to the masses.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

You've got the question about the sun rising tomorrow correct. Well done.

We can't be sure the sun will rise tomorrow for the reasons you've given. Most people think we can be sure it will happen, because it has happened so many times in the past. This is an inductive argument, one which says that things that have happened repeatedly in the past can be expected to happen in the future. It's an argument that people make all the time, but there is a problem with it. As you have highlighted, unusual events can happen which interfere with the process in question. In our case, the idea that comets could hit the earth etc.

The problem with induction is that our best reason for believing it to be logically valid is that inductive arguments have often been successful in the past. In other words, our best reason for believing in inductive arguments is itself an inductive argument!

Ive seen a documentary which shows that the majority of people appeal to stupidity, and in the end of the documentary it says something like smart people sometimes act stupid just to appeal to the masses.

People have claimed this about Mr. Bush, but I'm not buying it. His exam results speak for themselves...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush

Peace

 

[Shadow]

The problem with induction is that our best reason for believing it to be logically valid is that inductive arguments have often been successful in the past. In other words, our best reason for believing in inductive arguments is itself an inductive argument!

Are we allowed to use inductive arguements in debates?

People have claimed this about Mr. Bush, but I'm not buying it. His exam results speak for themselves...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush

He went to Yale :?
But his grades werent high :?
anyways lets stick to philosophy

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Are we allowed to use inductive arguements in debates?

Of course, but as long as we are aware that they have that peculiarity I mentioned. Many scientific laws have inductive reasoning as their basis. It is partly for this reason that scientists don't say "my theory is definitely true" - instead they say "my theory hasn't been falsified yet".

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Greetings,


Of course, but as long as we are aware that they have that peculiarity I mentioned. Many scientific laws have inductive reasoning as their basis. It is partly for this reason that scientists don't say "my theory is definitely true" - instead they say "my theory hasn't been falsified yet".

Peace

ah so my theory that the sun will rise tomorrow hasnt been falsified yet

 

[shudnt_have]

Salaams

I plan on studying the philo from the basics too
Right now, I am stuck with idea of "existentialism" (lets see if I spelled it right)
I have read many books, philo encyclopedia on this topic.. it is still confusing

For a minute I think I got a hang of the topic..while at the other, I think I dont understand a word.

any comments?

 

[Knut Hamsun]

CZGibson:
I really like your posts in this thread... great job, as it is both a massive topic to tackle, and because philosophy has, at times in its history, suffered from an infusion of wordy obfuscations (read:"postmodernism") and senseless diversions. I wholly agree with your :

Nietzsche has the best prose style of any of the great philosophers.

For he alone it is that I wish I could read German! He is brilliant enough in translation, I can't imagine him in the original. A highly spiritual soul , was he! Very misunderstood.

Anyhow, to the student who is just beginning a study of philosophy,
I find it very helpful to wade through the pools of the subject by asking what the GreatOne(Aristotle) asked...
"Which is the Ideal life?"
"Which is the Just life?"
"Which ideas/beliefs/systems most promote the qualities that are best for our society?"
"How can I be most HAPPY"
(I a paraphrasing, here, but this is the general gist)
To me, the best philosophies have inquired into deeply personal spiritual questions, not unlike those of the greatest religions. If you study philosophy with this spiritual hunger in you, you will find some great ideas (and also some boring and unrelated stuff, so hang in there!!!)!!!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

ah so my theory that the sun will rise tomorrow hasnt been falsified yet

Quite right!

I plan on studying the philo from the basics too
Right now, I am stuck with idea of "existentialism" (lets see if I spelled it right)
I have read many books, philo encyclopedia on this topic.. it is still confusing

For a minute I think I got a hang of the topic..while at the other, I think I dont understand a word.

any comments?

Existentialism doesn't really have any simple definition. It's a term that covers the thought and work of lots of philosophers, novelists and artists, and they often disagree with each other about what it means.

Existential writings often include a concern with existence, and what it means for us; freedom, and what we should do with it; the fact that our lives are something that we create, rather than being something set out for us in advance.

This all sounds very woolly and abstract, because it is. The best way to understand existentialism is to read about it. The key existentialist philosopher is Jean-Paul Sartre, and his key text is Being and Nothingness. The trouble is that this is very big book, and it's quite difficult to understand if you're not already familiar with lots of other philosophy. To get to grips with Sartre, I'd recommend reading his lecture Existentialism and Humanism, which is shorter and clearer. Another option is to read Albert Camus' novel L'etranger (translated as 'The Stranger' or 'The Outsider'), which gives a good insight into the existential mind.

Here's an article on the subject that I think makes a good attempt at summing up the whole idea:

Existentialism

Don't worry too much about the warning at the top of the page; it's difficult to give an overview of existentialism without saying something that somebody else disagrees with.

Hope that helps!

I really like your posts in this thread... great job, as it is both a massive topic to tackle, and because philosophy has, at times in its history, suffered from an infusion of wordy obfuscations (read:"postmodernism") and senseless diversions.

Greetings Knut,

Firstly, may I say what a treat it is to have a Nobel prize-winning Danish novelist on board! You must be over a hundred years old by now...

I agree that when talking about philosophy it's best to eschew obfuscation - sorry, I mean avoid using difficult words. If you get riled by postmodernist ramblings, I'd recommend reading Alain Sokal's Intellectual Impostures if you haven't already done so. It's the story of how he hoaxed some academic journals into publishing a postmodernist paper he'd written, and which he freely admits is meaningless. They published it; he proved his point.

I wholly agree with your :
Quote:
Nietzsche has the best prose style of any of the great philosophers.
For he alone it is that I wish I could read German! He is brilliant enough in translation, I can't imagine him in the original. A highly spiritual soul , was he! Very misunderstood.

I'm the same - apparently he's brilliant in the original German. I've had more than one German-speaker tell me that Nietzsche is the best prose writer in German.

Anyhow, to the student who is just beginning a study of philosophy,
I find it very helpful to wade through the pools of the subject by asking what the GreatOne(Aristotle) asked...
"Which is the Ideal life?"
"Which is the Just life?"
"Which ideas/beliefs/systems most promote the qualities that are best for our society?"
"How can I be most HAPPY"
(I a paraphrasing, here, but this is the general gist)

I agree, the best way to start philosophy is by thinking about the kinds of questions philosophers ask. Three out of four of those questions you've asked can be found in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, while he deals with the third in his Politics. The Politics is much harder than the Ethics, and in general I'd suggest starting with a philosopher other than Aristotle. My two reasons for this are that firstly, he's quite difficult to get to grips with, and secondly, he was very wise and influential, but unfortunately he was wrong about almost everything...

To me, the best philosophies have inquired into deeply personal spiritual questions, not unlike those of the greatest religions. If you study philosophy with this spiritual hunger in you, you will find some great ideas (and also some boring and unrelated stuff, so hang in there!!!)!!!

I can kind of see what you mean here, but I'm not sure this applies to all philosophers. The logicians, for instance? Frege, Wittgenstein and Russell?

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Hi,

Is Existentialism related to Sophilisim?

Oh and about Aristotle,

I'd suggest starting with a philosopher other than Aristotle. My two reasons for this are that firstly, he's quite difficult to get to grips with, and secondly, he was very wise and influential, but unfortunately he was wrong about almost everything...

How come he was famous if his studies were very difficult and he was wrong about alot of things? :?
Was he famous for his influence and political power?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Is Existentialism related to Sophilisim?

I'm not sure what you mean by sophilisim. Are you thinking of solipsism? They're not really related - i.e. you don't need to be a solipsist to be an existentialist and vice versa.

How come he was famous if his studies were very difficult and he was wrong about alot of things? :?
Was he famous for his influence and political power?

Good question. One reason why I say he's difficult is because many of his works have only survived in fragentary form. The Politics consist of a number of lecture notes used by Aristotle. We are not sure if they are in the right order, or how many other lectures were part of the series. Also, because they are his own personal notes, he hasn't made everything totally clear in them. Presumably he could remember roughly what he wanted to say, so he didn't need to write every detail in his notes. This makes understanding them quite difficult for the modern reader.

Aristotle's thought was dominant in Western society during the Middle Ages, mainly due to the influence of the Church. The Christian Fathers decided that Aristotle's thought gave a good philosophical backing to Christian doctrine, and so they pushed for his ideas to be a major part of the Christian education system (such as it was) of the day. It was during the period between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (so I'm talking roughly 16th - late 17th century) that Aristotle's ideas began to be superseded, and only during the 19th century that his logical system was decisively refuted.

To me, Aristotle has always seemed like a slightly odd choice for use by the Christian Fathers, since he was what would later be called an empiricist, one who believes that all our ideas derive ultimately from our senses. Plato was a more mystical philosopher, perhaps more in tune with religious thought. However, the problem with Plato was that there is a lot of scepticism in his work, so maybe that's what turned the Church Fathers against him. Anyway, this is just me rambling. An important word to take with you from this is empiricist (see the link above) - you'll come across it a lot in philosophical studies.

Aristotle himself was not a hugely powerful person, although he did run a school of philosophy in Athens, the Lyceum, so that gave him a certain amount of prestige, I suppose. He was also famous for being Plato's star pupil, and for being the tutor of Alexander the Great. You can find out more about him here:

Aristotle

I hope that's of some interest. Of Aristotle's books, only the Nichomachean Ethics is usually taught on first year degree courses. If you're interested in Aristotle, that would be the place to start.

However, I would recommend Plato as being an easier philosopher to get on with when you're starting out. He wrote dialogues, so you can see the arguments developing clearly. The main character in the dialogues is Socrates, the most legendary of all philosophers. Plato was taught by Socrates, but Socrates did not write any of his ideas down. Plato took it upon himself to immortalise his master in his own work. For this reason, we do not know how much of the ideas in Plato's work belongs to Socrates and how much to Plato, but this is not hugely important.

What is important are the works themselves. A good one to start off with might be the Symposium, which is a philosophical discussion about love. The best of Plato's works is the Republic, which is a wide ranging discussion based around the question of "what is justice?"

Plato is often regarded as being one of the most pleasant philosophers to read. There is a fair amount of humour in his work, and most of all, there is the character of Socrates. He is probably the most intelligent character I have come across in all literature, and it is impossible not to be in awe of him him as you read the dialogues.

Hopefully something in this rather long and rambling post of mine will have caught your interest. Let me know if you're going to start reading some philosophy, and I'll help out if needed (and if I can, of course!).

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Thank you for the detailed post, it cleared alot of misconceptions in my mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by sophilisim. Are you thinking of solipsism?

tomato, tomatoe same thing

It was during the period between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (so I'm talking roughly 16th - late 17th century) that Aristotle's ideas began to be superseded, and only during the 19th century that his logical system was decisively refuted.

So does that mean the Church taught its students about Aristotle's ideas all the way to the 19th century, including his ideas about everything coming from our senses?

Aristotle himself was not a hugely powerful person, although he did run a school of philosophy in Athens, the Lyceum, so that gave him a certain amount of prestige, I suppose. He was also famous for being Plato's star pupil, and for being the tutor of Alexander the Great.

I didnt know that Plato was older than Aristotle, all these years I thought they were school buddies

I hope that's of some interest. Of Aristotle's books, only the Nichomachean Ethics is usually taught on first year degree courses. If you're interested in Aristotle, that would be the place to start.

Im actually interested in their ideas more than their history

However, I would recommend Plato as being an easier philosopher to get on with when you're starting out. He wrote dialogues, so you can see the arguments developing clearly. The main character in the dialogues is Socrates, the most legendary of all philosophers.

If Socrates is the most legendary philosopher of all time, did his ideas and views affect history and the way we live today? :?

Plato was taught by Socrates, but Socrates did not write any of his ideas down. Plato took it upon himself to immortalise his master in his own work. For this reason, we do not know how much of the ideas in Plato's work belongs to Socrates and how much to Plato, but this is not hugely important.

okay now I can make a crazy theory that Socrates doesnt exist and is infact a figment of Plato's imagination
My theory hasnt been falsified yet

What is important are the works themselves. A good one to start off with might be the Symposium, which is a philosophical discussion about love. The best of Plato's works is the Republic, which is a wide ranging discussion based around the question of "what is justice?"

Thanks for the links

Plato is often regarded as being one of the most pleasant philosophers to read. There is a fair amount of humour in his work, and most of all, there is the character of Socrates. He is probably the most intelligent character I have come across in all literature, and it is impossible not to be in awe of him him as you read the dialogues.

What about William Shakespeare? :?

Hopefully something in this rather long and rambling post of mine will have caught your interest. Let me know if you're going to start reading some philosophy, and I'll help out if needed (and if I can, of course!).

Alot has caught my interest and created many inquiries
I apologize for the massive amount of questions I have posted

Thank You

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

So does that mean the Church taught its students about Aristotle's ideas all the way to the 19th century, including his ideas about everything coming from our senses?

The Church was dominant in the Middle Ages, so at that time it had control over what kind of education the masses would receive. (As it happened, not many people had the privilege of being educated, so the majority simply had to listen to the educate authorities.) During the Renaissance this position started to change, and the Church's influence waned. The idea of the 'free-thinker' began to arise.

Aristotle's view on knowledge deriving from the senses (empiricism) was very popular among philosophers during the 18th century, but it underwent subtle modifications. By this time the Church was still an influence on mainstream education, but not to the extent that it had been. Pure academics were largely free to speculate as they wished, especially in more liberal countries like France.

I mentioned the 19th century in relation to the refutation of Aristotle's logic. His logic would have been taught in schools until then, but the Church by then was not responsible for the content of educational programmes.

I didnt know that Plato was older than Aristotle, all these years I thought they were school buddies

I'm sure they were great friends, but, yes, Plato was older than Aristotle.

Im actually interested in their ideas more than their history

The best place to get their ideas is straight from their works!

If Socrates is the most legendary philosopher of all time, did his ideas and views affect history and the way we live today? :?

Absolutely. The 'Socratic Method' of education is something used every day by teachers all over the world (usually without realising it). Here's how it works:

Socrates would gather his students and they would decide on a topic for discussion. Normally it was something that naturally arose from their lives. Socrates' favourite topics were abstract ideas that we all take for granted, like happiness, goodness, justice and truth. He would then check to see if everyone understood the terms, getting his students to give him simple examples. What he did next was the clever bit. He would indicate that he himself had difficulty understanding the concept. At this point his pupils would usually think he was mad, and they would give him more examples. Socrates would then question them sceptically, showing his students that their examples were incoherent or self-contradictory, until gradually everyone would realise that they didn't understand the concept nearly as well as they had assumed. They would eventually have to rebuild their understanding of it, and settle on a compromised definition of the original concept, and everyone would go away with a new and deeper understanding of its intricacies.

This method is so useful for teaching, because it gives the teacher a clear understanding at every stage of where their pupils' learning is at. When I'm teaching English, and I want a student to know how to write persuasively, or how to use apostrophes correctly, one of the best ways to do that is through a method known as 'test-teach-test'. I ask questions to assess what the students know now, I then explain the concept to them, then I ask them to explain it back to me. During that second 'test' period, I will question them with examples and different situations to ensure that they can work the concept by themselves. This method is a direct descendant of that used by Socrates.

okay now I can make a crazy theory that Socrates doesnt exist and is infact a figment of Plato's imagination
My theory hasnt been falsified yet

Here goes!:

He's mentioned not only in the works of Plato, but also in works by Aristotle, Aristophanes and Xenophon, and several others. You can find details of them on this page.

He was also famously sentenced to death by the Athenian authorities, as trial documents and witnesses show. Here's why:

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian Empire to its decline after its defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens was seeking to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public court was induced by three leading public figures to try Socrates for impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens. This was a time in culture when the Greeks thought of gods and goddesses as being associated with protecting particular cities. Athens, for instance, is named after its protecting goddess Athena. The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War was interpreted as Athena judging the city for not being pious. Enter Socrates, who was perceived as questioning the gods, and in light of the recent war, it was all too easy to ascribe defeat to impiety rather than incompetence. The last thing Athens needed was more punishment from Athena for one man inciting its citizens to question her or the other gods. In the Apology, Socrates insists that this is a false charge.

According to the version of his defense speech presented in Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded negatively. Socrates, interpreting this as a riddle, set out to find men who were wiser than he was. He questioned the men of Athens about their knowledge of good, beauty, and virtue. Finding that they knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew that he knew nothing. Socrates' superior intellect made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing.

Despite Socrates' brilliant and moving defense speech, he was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to death by drinking a cup of hemlock.

According to Xenophon and Plato, Socrates had an opportunity to escape, as his followers were able to bribe the prison guards. After escaping, Socrates would have had to flee from Athens. As the dialogue Crito makes clear, Socrates refused to escape even in order to evade the execution of his death sentence. Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury.

What about William Shakespeare? :?

The cleverest characters in Shakespeare are probably Hamlet, Iago, Falstaff, Ulysses and possibly Cleopatra, but, in my view, Socrates beats them all. Whether Socrates was cleverer than Shakespeare is a different question - they both clearly had phenomenal minds. If you're interested, my top five geniuses of all time would include these two together with David Hume, Karl Marx and James Joyce. That's excluding the scientists, anyway...

Alot has caught my interest and created many inquiries

Great! If you find these ideas interesting, I'd recommend getting hold of an encyclopedia of philosophy - the Oxford edition edited by Ted Honderich is very good. Or of course there's always wikipedia right here on the net, and it's absolutely free!

I apologize for the massive amount of questions I have posted

No problem - it's a pleasure.

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Hi thanks for answering all the questions

I have one more question thought before we move on to another philosophical question

how were people to drink hemlock when they know they will die if they do?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Hi thanks for answering all the questions

I have one more question thought before we move on to another philosophical question

how were people to drink hemlock when they know they will die if they do?

This kind of punishment was common in ancient Greece and Rome. The authorities thought that rather than simply killing criminals it was better to force them to commit suicide. The authorities felt less guilty that way. Socrates would have known that if he had refused to drink the hemlock he could have been executed in a far more painful way.

I'm enjoying our discussion here very much. It's always good to meet someone who's interested in these matters.

For the next question, I would suggest you either look for a particular philosophical question of your choice that you'd like to discuss, or you could choose one of the ones I've already mentioned, or I could think of another one for you - it's up to you...

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Hi Czgibson,

This kind of punishment was common in ancient Greece and Rome. The authorities thought that rather than simply killing criminals it was better to force them to commit suicide. The authorities felt less guilty that way. Socrates would have known that if he had refused to drink the hemlock he could have been executed in a far more painful way.

Socrates was smart, did he have any kids?

I'm enjoying our discussion here very much. It's always good to meet someone who's interested in these matters.

Which matters are we talking about here? Philosophy or Philosophers? :?
im interested in both but mostly fallacies

For the next question, I would suggest you either look for a particular philosophical question of your choice that you'd like to discuss, or you could choose one of the ones I've already mentioned, or I could think of another one for you - it's up to you...

well if its alright with you then I would like questions with yes or no answers since its much easier, for example the tautology question
or maybe questions with multiple choice such as :

Did Socrates drink hemlock to die or did he die from eating his Dad's cooked food

 

[Knut Hamsun]

Great posts, czgibson--
you are an excellent "explainer"/teacher. I am enjoying reading this exchange.
yours,
Knut Hamsun
ps--
good catch on the name!!! His "Hunger" and "The Growth of the Soil" are 2 of my all time favorite books. And yes, I know about his collaboration in WWII, etc...not a good thing--Only that I think art can be separated from the artist!
(ie I am not a Nazi-sympathizer!! )

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Socrates was smart, did he have any kids?

He had three children by his wife Xanthippe according to the wikipedia article. She is famous for being an absolute nightmare due to her nagging, but we only have Xenophon's word for that. Their children didn't become famous philosophers or anything, so far as I know.

Which matters are we talking about here? Philosophy or Philosophers? :?
im interested in both but mostly fallacies

We're talking about both, really. It's hard not to...

Here's a page on fallacies and also one on paradoxes, which you might also find interesting. I'd (again) recommend Jamie Whyte's Bad Thoughts as a good book on fallacies. It's certainly the best one I've read on the subject.

well if its alright with you then I would like questions with yes or no answers since its much easier, for example the tautology question

You'll find that there aren't many yes / no questions in philosophy!

or maybe questions with multiple choice such as :

Did Socrates drink hemlock to die or did he die from eating his Dad's cooked food

Hmmmm....

On this page you can read Socrates' defence speech, as reported by Plato:

The Last Days of Socrates

It's one of the finest pieces of literature I've ever read. Enjoy!

Greeting Knut,

Great posts, czgibson--
you are an excellent "explainer"/teacher. I am enjoying reading this exchange.
yours,
Knut Hamsun

Why, thank you!

ps--
good catch on the name!!! His "Hunger" and "The Growth of the Soil" are 2 of my all time favorite books. And yes, I know about his collaboration in WWII, etc...not a good thing--Only that I think art can be separated from the artist!
(ie I am not a Nazi-sympathizer!! )

I read 'Hunger' a few years ago. I can't remember too many details about it except that I enjoyed the writing's hallucinatory power. On the point about collaboration, I know what you mean and I agree entirely - as it happens I'm teaching a lesson on Ezra Pound tomorrow!

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Hi,

You'll find that there aren't many yes / no questions in philosophy!

ok in that case any question thats not too complicated will do

On this page you can read Socrates' defence speech, as reported by Plato:

The Last Days of Socrates

It's one of the finest pieces of literature I've ever read. Enjoy!

I read it and I didnt understand much but the ending was nice
Im curious now though
im sure he lived earlier than shakepere but then how come his english is better then shakespeare? :?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

I read it and I didnt understand much but the ending was nice
Im curious now though
im sure he lived earlier than shakepere but then how come his english is better then shakespeare? :?

He lived much earlier than Shakespeare. Socrates lived from about 469-399 BCE, while Shakespeare lived from 1564-1616.

What do you mean "his English is better than Shakespeare"? Nobody's English is better than Shakespeare's! He practically invented the language we speak today! Here is a list of phrases created by Shakespeare that are still in use by English speakers today:

Phrases from Shakespeare

Here is a list of some of the words invented by Shakespeare (there are lots of others, too). Again, most of these are still in use today:

Shakespearean Coinages

Imagine how different the language would be without all of those!

OK, that's the end of my English teacher rant-mode.

I suppose what you mean is that the text you've read is easier to understand than Shakespeare's writings. The simple reason for this is that Socrates' speech was written down by Plato in Greek, and what you have read is a modern translation into English.

For your next question to think about, I'd like you to have a look at the page on fallacies that I linked to above, choose a few of them and then give me your own examples of arguments that make those mistakes. That should get them clear in your mind, then you'll know what to look for when you're having debates with people.

Peace