what different between argument and rational

i am confused between those words argument and rational in academic use

Jun 25, 2014 12:22 PM
Comments · 7


   The two terms   mean different things    "tote".


   Rational  is a synonymous term  for reason, which is a synonymous term for Logic.

Logic and Reason  employ  a  special  kind of thinking termed a  Syllogism.

The classical Greek example of a Syllogism is this:


   All men are mortal.

Socrates is mortal.

Therefore,  Socrates is a man.


    The Greeks studied the inner workings of the  human thought, and analysed so much that they

discovered what produces a  True statement and what produces  a  False Statement.


   Logic, or Reason   follows three rules. These are  actually called  Laws, and they are attributed to  Greek philosopher  Aristotle.


    The Three Laws.

#1  The Law  of  Identity  (saying that something IS  something.)

#2  The Law of Non-Contradiction (the law that tells us that if you say that something IS something,you cannot contradict this Identity Statement by saying that the think is something else).

#3  The Law of the Excluded Middle

(the law that tells us that after we say something about what a thing is,  we cannot change the meaning of the thing by saying that something  "in-between" is the same as the thing.


 Let's look at some examples, that I often use to teach Logic  (Reason) and its 3 Laws.



June 27, 2014



 Let's look at the opposite of people following   Reason  (Logic) in their thinking. What happens.


   When  people  are Unreasonable  or  offer thinking that is Illogical, which is to say that they

violate the Three Laws of Logic, their thinking is said to be unreasonable or illogical.

Ultimately, this involves statements that become entirely false and people can actually program their mind and thinking just like a computer program, with false and untrue statements.  Ultimately,  such conclusions  show up as  thinking that we call Insane. 


 Irrational and Unreasonable thinking, that is repeated long enough, will show up in   strange and erratic behavior. Such persons are the ones that we  occasionally see  who follow blind hatred

(unreasoning  hatred or unreasoning unacceptance ) of other people, other  countries, other races, other religions,  other sports teams)  and so forth.


    So, in a general way,  an "Argument" is what we  say  or write  about something, when we want to show that it is true and not false.




June 27, 2014

What would an "undisciplined" way be? Namecalling, or saying bad things about the other person, are examples of "argument" which do not follow Dialectical Method. This would be the kind of "argument" that we see being discussed on Italki now about Facebook discussins of the "best" soccer team. When people start writing unkind things,which are intended to Hurt---The---Feelings of other people, this is not

the exercise of Dialectical Method.

The Greeks discovered also that the Mind (our Mind) has "dialogue" or conversations with its

"self". Self Dialogue is something all people do.

(Many people will tell you that they "do not like to argue" which is somewhat a false claim.

If nothing else, people do argue with their own mind all the time. People think things like;

"Should I do this?" "Should I do that?" "Is that True or False?" "Is that Good or Evil?"

When people arrive at conclusions about their world, their experience and their thoughts,

they are making Identity Statements.

June 27, 2014

Now let us look beyond Reason (Logic) and see what an Argument is.

  An argument is a dialogue (conversation)  which is intended to persuade or convince a person  of something  to be regarded as true.   Arguments of course,  can be understood in  more than one way.

   Argument can be understood to be  a  dialogue (spoken or written)  in which people claim

FOR or AGAINST   an idea or an "identity".    When the dialogue  is  conducted according to the Aristotelian (academic)  Three  Laws of Logic, we say that we are using   DIALECTICAL METHOD.

That means that we use our mind and speech in a Disciplined way.



June 27, 2014

  Let's begin  with an example of  an Identity Statement.


   This   is  3.  (That is an identity statement.  The subject of our thought, speech, and writing, is going to be the identity, "3". It will be 3, okay?)


    Let's look a  a  violation  of the Law of Non-Contradiction, which says that we cannot contradict our

identity statement.


     3   is equal to     100.  (Obviously, this is a false statement. Why?  Because  3 is not 100, nor

is 3 equal to   100. Three is not equal to any other number.   3 = 3  is a True statement, but it is a false statement to say that  3 is equal to 100 or any other number.

To say 3 = 100 is a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.


  What about numbers there  are very close to 3?  Let's us postulate (propose something)

that 3 is equal to   a  decimal.  We shall write the statement this way:


    3  = 3.5   (Is it a True statement?   No.  It is false, because it is a violation of the

Law of the Excluded Middle.)


   3.5  is halfway between   3 and 4.   We  cannot,  for the purpose of Reason (Logic) say that

3.5  is  equal to 3. It is a  MIDDLING  STATEMENT,  also called a  MEAN VALUE, that is not exactly the identity of 3.


  I like to use   Numbers and Color to teach the Three  Laws of Logic, because these things become so clear  when visual examples are used.





June 27, 2014
Show more