Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington has ratings and reviews. Scott said: I read this book in , and it probably has more meaning today. ‘Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington’. Consider three baseball umpires discussing their calling: umpire 1: I call ’em the way I sees ’em!. Tom Cathcart and Dan Klein talked about their book, [Aristotle and the Aardvark Go to Washington].
|Published (Last):||26 August 2011|
|PDF File Size:||10.7 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington
Goodreads helps aristotlr keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Aristotle Aardvark Washington, Feb 15 | Video |
Return to Book Page. In Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington t, our two favorite philosopher-comedians return just in time to save us from the double-speak, flim-flam, and alternate reality of politics in America. Deploying jokes and cartoon as well as the occasional insight washingotn Aristotle and his peers, Cathcart and Klein explain what politicos are up to when they state: Aristotle and an Aardvark is for anyone who ever felt like the politicos and pundits were speaking Greek.
At least Cathcart and Klein provide the Latin name for it raudatio publica! Hardcoverpages. Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington: To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washingtonplease sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington.
Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. May 15, Scott Rhee rated it it was amazing Shelves: I read this book inand it probably has more meaning today. Nobody uses basic rhetorical etiquette anymore and the essential rules of debate don’t insult your opponent, back your statement up with facts, be coherent are nonexistent.
Required reading for anyone who wants to dissect the constant stream of lies from our nation’s capital I read this book inand it probably has more meaning today. Required reading for anyone who wants to dissect the constant stream of lies from our nation’s capital and, specifically, the Oval Office.
How do you know when a politician is lying? His or her lips are moving.
Seriously, though, it’s often hard to listen to our elected officials and all those annoying pundits, because, deep down, we know something isn’t right about the stuff they are spewing.
We just can’t seem to put our fingers on why. Well, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein have spent their lives figuring out how to detect bullshit from our nation’s leaders. Philosophers by preoccupation and comedians by accident, Cathcart and Klein provide a compact but useful primer on BS detection in their humorous little book, “Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington”. Through the use of ridiculous quotes from politicians, pundits, and talk show hosts, as well as anecdotes, jokes, and a bevy of political cartoons, Cathcart and Klein illustrate the rhetorical and philosophical concepts of argument albeit bad argument employed by those in authority.
They demonstrate examples of Ignoratio Elenchi “ignorance amd the issue” or better known as “changing the subject”a favorite tactic of former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfield; Fallacy of False Dilemma: Bush who said, on Sept. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”, which, at the time, when emotions were heated, sounded good, but in retrospect is kind of ridiculous, as there is a third option, pointed out by Cathcart washngton Klein, that being “neutrality”; Weasel words, a semantic talent in which loaded, controversial words are replaced with less-loaded words, without actually changing the meaning, examples: As pure entertainment, “Aristotle and a Aardvark go to Washington” is hilarious g worth reading, but it also provides an excellent overview of “Philosophy fo Politics If you want to improve your own BS detection skills, definitely read this Feb 17, Steven rated it really liked it.
This book handily deconstructs the flimflammery that passes for politics, and how illogical most of it is. It’s not quite as funny as Plato and a Platypus walk into a barbut that’s because the illogic of politicians can often be more intricate than a philosophy text. Which should scare you. Still, it’s very accessible, and tries to be bipartisan in its ripostes. Because of the time period it was written, many of its modern examples draw from G. Bush’s administration, but be aware that Democra This book handily deconstructs the flimflammery that passes aristtotle politics, and how illogical most of it is.
Bush’s administration, but be aware that Democrats are not left unscathed. They’re after flimflammery, regardless of political affiliation.
The authors really hate politicians, but who can blame them? Cathcart and Klein demystify the speeches of politicians in a humorous and ironic way. A must read before each campaign. Jul 25, Jimm Wetherbee rated it liked it.
Cathcart and Klein has come up with a follow-up to their Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, this time with a focus on logical fallacies, rhetoric, and contemporary political discourse.
Appropriately enough, the cover again features detail from Raphael’s School of Athens—even if Aristotle’s portrait is reserved. Let me get one thing out of the way. Can’t tell them worth a wit, but I love ’em. So I end up terrorizing aardvak, family and colleagues by cornering them with comics and Cathcart and Klein has come up with a follow-up to their Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, this time with a focus on logical fallacies, rhetoric, and contemporary political discourse.
So I end up terrorizing friends, family and colleagues by cornering them with comics and political cartoons from people who can. The jokes here are just as good as Carthcart and Klein’s previous effort, and yes I trap a few family members and waited in silence for the inevitable grin. I also confess that I’ve reread the best bits a number of times.
It should also be stated that the jokes in Aristotle and an Aardvark do a better job of illustrating the authors’ points than Plato and a Platypus. This should be no surprise. The jokes that worked best in Plato and a Platypus were those that illustrated fallacies. Part of what makes a joke funny is the use it makes of the incongruity of meanings found in the same word or phrase or a eashington misunderstanding the suddenly jumps out, seemingly from nowhere.
Now for the other shoe. Cathcart and Klein, however, make two mistakes that seriously detract from what should have been a no-brainer. First, they tend to look at political discourse as a series of logical arguments, the exclusion of almost all else.
There is little recognition of political discourse as a rhetorical art, and when arustotle is, it is almost always seen as a species of persuasion. However, if we have learned anything in the past years or so of marketing, it is there are more persuasive means than rhetoric.
Moreover, a fair bit of contemporary political discourse does aim to persuade at all. Rather, it aims at mobilizing true believers and marginalizing descent.
That oversight could be put down the author’s focus on philosophy. What is not so easily dismissed is that Cathcart and Klein commit some of the very fallacies they find in politicians. One would think that coming up wawhington fallacious exemplars among the political classes would be like hunting fish in a barrel. You know, going back to Septemberthe president said, dead or alive, we’re going to get [Osama bin Laden].
Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington by Thomas Cathcart
Still don’t have him. I know you are saying there’s successes on the war terror, and there have been. That’s a failure Townsend: Well, I’m not sure—its a success that hasn’t occurred yet. I don’t view that as a failure. Granted, Townsend is aristotlw Cathcart and Klein state weaseling a bit. The capture of bin Laden may also be a failure that has not yet occurred.
However, Cathcart and Klein go too far in arguing that Townsend essentially defines failure as a success that hasn’t occurred. In doing so, they failed to recognize a fallacy they pointed out earlier, that washignton the false dilemma. More egregious, is the instance they cite of a valid albeit unintentionally valid argument clearly isn’t. What happens when they [illegals] climb the fence. They won’t touch it. But what if they do touch it? You would let them die? It would be their choice.
What about a mother with a arietotle strapped to her back? Would you let the mother and the baby die? It would be the mother’s choice to kill that baby.
Then you’re in favor of abortion? Leaving aside the relative merits or lack thereof of either abortion or fencing off Mexico as a method of immigration control the assertion that the above is a valid argument is at a minimum problematic.
The Delegate is simply asserting that the hypothetical mother is acting on her own volition and so responsible for her choices. It’s called the fallacy of the four-term syllogism. If you work through Aristotle and an Aardvark long enough, Cathcart and Klein will help you find even more.
Jan 30, Ferda Nihat Koksoy rated it liked it Shelves: Aug 22, Molly G rated it it was amazing Shelves: Possibly the first non-narrative nonfiction book I’ve voluntarily completed.
I think part of yo I wanted to read this book, after so many years of finding the subject matter not only boring but actually sparking a kind of pain-aversion reflex, was getting sick of the sense of paralysis, impotence, helplessness, of not knowing what to do about current events, because it’s so hard to get any sense of objective reality or know which end is up.
This is not just me being arietotle