THE VIMINITZ (On Modern Sophistry)

Former Professor Viminitz’ Interview With Former Professor Frances Widdowson

Paul Viminitz was fired from his job as a Philosophy Professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, circa January 2nd, 2024. Thus, like Dr. Widdowson herself, Viminitz became another “cancelled” Canadian academic. Paul gives Frances the details of his firing on the video from which I captured the image above. Typing in the caption of the video (upper left corner of the video; white lettering) takes you to Widdowson's Youtube video where Paul explains his firing.

I'm interested in both of their cases, given that I'm from Alberta and given that so many academics are being "cancelled" in the present and have been cancelled in the past. Anywhere from Socrates in ancient Athens, to Christ in ancient Judea, to Galileo during the renaissance, to the commie witch-hunts of the McCarthy era, down south, to Widdowson and Viminitz at present, humans like to cancel their critics arguably in "order" to prove themselves "right".

But a far better (than cancelling) way to prove oneself right, wrong or ignorant, is to debate the person with whom one disagrees. That process was called DIALOGUE by the ancient Greeks. When the process of dialogue was raised to the level of an art form, the skilled practice of dialogue came to be known as DIALECTIC ( διαλεκτική; dialectike). Similarly, most liberal art forms such as grammar, rhetoric and logic (The Latin "trivium") when raised to the level of skilled use were given an ending based on the early Greek word for Justice, δική (dike). Thus grammar was called γραμματικὴ τέχνη (grammatikḕ téchnē), rhetoric was, similarly, ρητορική (rhetorike; with the ike ending) and arithmetic had the same sort of nomenclature ἀριθμητική τέχνη (arithmetike tekhne), meaning "the art of counting".

Prior to Aristotle, Plato's dialectic was about as good as it got for determining truth from falsehood via dialogues. After Aristotle, there was his logic [6 treatises in total] to determine truth from falsehood employing the basic law of thought. Some call that axiom the law of non-contradiction in a moral sense. i.e. You ought not to contradict yourself or what exists. Others call it the law of contradiction or the basic axiom/law of thought. In either case, it's the same law, telling us that true statements contradict and are contradicted by false statements every time. More on Aristotle and his logic treatises later. First, let's hear Dr. Viminitz' monologue on WHY ISRAEL DOESN’T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF from his own website. Quote:

Viminitz:

WHY ISRAEL DOESN’T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF BY PAULOSOPHICALVIMPLICATIONS on JANUARY 4, 2024 • ( 11 )

The thing about rhetoric is it can’t afford to ask itself what it means by the words it uses. For example, in justifying Israel’s response to the attack on October 7, the most oft-chanted mantra is that Israel has a right to defend itself. But no one stops to ask what’s meant by a right. If she did she’d have to acknowledge that a right isn’t the kind of thing one can have and hold against all comers. That is, it isn’t some exclusion-conferring fact-of-the-matter. It’s an exclusion-conferring acknowledgement by those expected to respect that exclusion. To say that you have a right to something is to say that I’ve undertaken not to interfere with your enjoyment of it save by your leave. Have the Palestinians undertaken not to interfere with Israel’s enjoyment of occupied Palestine? They have not. So Israel can claim a right to defend itself, but only to whatever parties acknowledge that right. These include most but not all of the rest of the governments in the world. But they do not include Hamas and a number of other pro-Palestinian governments in the Middle East.

Of course by parity of reasoning do the Palestinians have a right to Palestine? Clearly not. So neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have a right to the land “from the river to the sea”. Then who does? This is the problem with rights-talk. The question presupposes that there’s an acknowledgement-independent fact of the matter about a rights claim. But there isn’t. There isn’t because a right isn’t that kind of thing.

Rhetoric is the art of doing an end-run around what’s really at issue. This is why rhetoric abhors philosophy. And so it should. Philosophy is abhorrent!

*********************************************************

Aristotle's first logic treatise deals with the logic of simple categorical words or terms. After dealing with the 10 categorical words or terms, he describes the 4 senses in which things (symbolized by words) are opposed.

He talks of 1. correlatives to one another, 2. contraries to one another, 3. positives to privatives and finally 4. affirmatives to negatives. It is only in the 4rth case [Affirmative propositions to Negative propositions] that, quote "... in this case and in this case only, it is necessary for the one opposite to be true and the other false." [Categories; Ch. 10.; 13b lines 1 - 3] Again, quote:

ARISTOTLE: (13b line 10): In short, where there is no sort of combination of words, truth and falsity have no place and all the opposites we have mentioned so far consist of simple words. (snip) ... (13b line 26) But in the case of affirmation and negation, whether the subject exists or not, one is always false and the other true. For manifestly, if Socrates exists, one of the two propositions 'Socrates is ill.', 'Socrates is not ill.', is true and the other false. This is likewise the case if he does not exist; for if he does not exist to say that he is ill, is false, to say that he is not ill, is true. Thus it is in the case of those opposites only, which are opposite in the sense in which the term is used with reference to affirmation and negation, that the rule holds good, that one of the pair must be true and the other false. (13b line 35).

In his 2nd logic treatise [Titled “On Interpretation” in English translation] Aristotle deals with propositions or declarative sentences of either affirmative or negative varieties. He teaches how contrary and contradictory pairs of propositions are logically opposed, in what became known as his "Square of logical opposition". Taking his examples of a pair of simple contradictions from above we get: "Socrates is ill." (False) vs. "Socrates is not ill." (True). Socrates is not ill because he no longer exists. But if you "overgeneralized" Socrates, who is one human, to all humans, then the pair of propositions "Every human is ill." vs. "No human is ill." would be a pair of contrary propositions. The contradictory propositions of the pair of contrary propositions are "Some human is not ill." [which contradicts "Every human is ill."] and "Some human is ill." [which contradicts "No human is ill."].

So, now, just think of your personal self or your personal country. 1. Do you think that you have a right to defend yourself? 2. Do you think that your country has a right to defend itself? 3. Do you think that no country has the right to defend itself? Or, finally, 4. Do you think that every country has a right to defend itself?

In short and in sum, whatever you think to be true, or false, among those 4 kinds of propositions, numbered 1. through 4., will be expressible as part of an Aristotelian Square of logical opposition where true propositions contradict false propositions every time. Any major Socratic philosopher, especially an Aristotelian, knows what Paul's logical position is with respect to such an Aristotelian logical "Square" from the title of his short essay, which he has placed in the category of "critical thinking" at his site.

He thinks that "Some country (Israel) does not have a right to defend itself." (True) and he proposes to say WHY that "logical" proposition is true. After all, that is the title of his short argument, requote WHY ISRAEL DOESN’T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF. That title is the direct logical opposite of "Every country does have a right to defend itself." So if his statement about Israel (Some country) is true, then the logical opposite "Every country does have a right to defend itself." is a false proposition.

Does what Paul deny [“Some country does not have a right to defend itself.” (true); which contradicts the proposition, “Every country does have the right to defend itself.” (false) ] imply that the other contrary member of a pair of contrary propositions ["No country has (does have) a right to defend itself."] should, then be considered as true?

The answer is "No" because pairs of contrary propositions may both be false. However in that case or "paradigm", where the proposition "Some country doesn't have a right defend itself." is true and the proposition "Some (other) country does have a right to defend itself." is equally true, on what "ground" could Viminitz argue as to WHY both of those propositions are equally true?

For example it should be evident that "Some people are logical." is a true statement and that "Some (other) people are not logical." is also true. That makes the contrary pair of propositions "Every person is logical." vs. "No person is logical." equally false. Just dealing with various individuals gives us the true and false propositions of such a banal "square". Similarly it is true that "Some human is a Canadian." (e.g. Viminitz) is true and that "Some human is not a Canadian.” (e.g. Joe Biden) is also true. Thus the contrary propositions "Every human is a Canadian." vs "No human is a Canadian." are both false propositions. However when you get really general and say:

"Every human has a brain" vs. "No human has a brain", barring metaphors, most people would think that it is true to say that "Every human has a brain." That immediately makes the proposition "Some human has a brain." equally true which directly contradicts "No human has a brain." which becomes false. And, similarly, if you remotely believe the universal declaration on human rights, then you should agree that the proposition "Every human has rights." is a true proposition and that "No human has rights." is a false proposition.

In sum, there are only 3 paradigms for logical squares. 1. The universal affirmation is true [e.g. Every human has rights] and the rest of the "square" gets filled in or 2. The universal negation is true [e.g. No human is an insect.] and the rest of the "square" gets filled in and 3. The particular propositions "Some person is wrong.” (true)" and "Some (other) person is not wrong.” (true) Thus, the universal propositions "Every person is wrong." vs. "No person is wrong." are both false contrary propositions.

My belief, at the beginning of our dialogue was that "Every country has a right to defend itself." was a true proposition. Thus the proposition "Some country (Israel) has (does have) a right to defend itself." was an equally true proposition. That made Paul's thesis, in my judgment, with Aristotle's "square" in the back of my mind, a false proposition. So how did Paul defend his arguably false proposition when I began arguing with somewhat nasty rhetoric followed by Socratic questions?

The Dialogue Begins

PAUL: The thing about rhetoric is it can’t afford to ask itself what it means by the words it uses.

REPLY: The more important thing about rhetoric, is that it can’t pick its own nose, wipe its own ass, open its own mouth, or open a dictionary to find out what a word like rhetoric means. It’s just a fricking word. It can’t do anything, let alone ask itself about anything.

PAUL: For example, in justifying Israel’s response to the attack on October 7, the most oft-chanted mantra is that Israel has a right to defend itself.

COMMENT: Israel also has the power to both defend itself and counter-attack.

PAUL: But no one stops to ask what’s meant by a right.

COMMENT: So Israelis should consult dictionaries on “rights” before they visit Moses’ eye for an eye response to murderers. What a Canadian “academic” answer, that is, in response to Israeli citizens being murdered. [Grab your dictionaries boys and girls and define “rights”. That’ll stop murderers dead!]

PAUL: If she did (ask what’s meant by a right) she’d have to acknowledge that a right isn’t the kind of thing one can have and hold against all comers.

COMMENT: So a “right” is alienable??? A “right” ISN’T an infinite number of things which are not rights. e.g. A right is not an Aardvark, a Baker, a Candlestick-maker or … on and on …. to a Zebra. Keep on enunciating individual words which are not the term “right” until the dictionary has been exhausted. Then start on irrelevant phrases. In truth, a right is exactly “the kind of thing one can have and hold against all comers.”, although “most; not all; comers” are able to violate such rights.

PAUL: That is, it [a right KB] isn’t some exclusion-conferring fact-of-the-matter.

COMMENT: Another non-definition of what a “right” is not.

PAUL: It (a right)’s an exclusion-conferring acknowledgement by those expected to respect that exclusion.

QUESTION: Do you mean that my rights or your rights are “exclusion conferring acknowledgments by those expected to respect that exclusion” but who may not respect, not acknowledge and not give a “toot” about my rights or your rights? So our rights are conferred upon us by our enemies! Let’s see!

PAUL: To say that you have a right to something is to say that I’ve undertaken not to interfere with your enjoyment of it save by your leave.

REPLY: So I have a right to the money in my wallet because Paul Viminitz won’t steal it or otherwise interfere with my enjoyment of it, without my leave. Here Paul, take my rather light wallet in your left hand. Here is my knife for you, for your right hand. Now here is the gun with which I’m going to shoot you between the eyes for attempting to steal my wallet, while threatening my life with my own knife, which you borrowed in order to steal my wallet. I’m going to claim that “self defence” at court. What’re you gonna do, besides die?

PAUL: Have the Palestinians undertaken not to interfere with Israel’s enjoyment of occupied Palestine? [There’s a rhetorical question KB] They have not.

PAUL: So Israel can claim a right to defend itself, but only to whatever parties acknowledge that right.

COMMENT: So rights are subjective now! To some individuals or states one has a right. But to other individuals or states one does not have a right. Clever!

PAUL: These [parties; states; persons KB] include most but not all of the rest of the governments in the world. But they do not include Hamas and a number of other pro-Palestinian governments in the Middle East.

BINGO: So per above, “rights” must be subjective. Or we may be simply back at the old modern sophistry game of rights (to some) are not rights (to others), to wit contradictions-in-terms. Rights (babble babble yaddety yak) are not Rights (to terrorists and stone-age people with oil revenues).

PAUL: Of course by parity of reasoning do the Palestinians have a right to Palestine? Clearly not.

QUESTION and COMMENTS: What “parity of reasoning”? The question was does Israel have a right to defend itself? Your answer was, in effect to say: Grab your dictionaries! Ignore your dictionaries! And realize that: Some say Israel does. Others say Israel does not. But the question and non-answer was never “Who owns Palestine?” Ergo: Material/informal Fallacy: Missing the point.. 

PAUL: So neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have a right to the land “from the river to the sea.

JUDGMENT: Fallacy of overgeneralizing a non-point.

PAUL: Then who does?

ANSWER: Israelis who are just. And Palestinians who are just. That is because a right is the resolute intention of just persons to grant other persons the goods that are due to them.

PAUL: This is the problem with rights-talk.

REBUTTAL: No. That’s your problem for failing to define a term, to wit “right” and then wandering around until you were off topic (defence) and ended up with ownership.

PAUL: The question presupposes that there’s an acknowledgement independent fact of the matter about a rights claim.

COMMENT: Right. That fact is Lady Justice and her disciples.

PAUL: But there isn’t. 

REPLY: There is no Justice and no just persons from the river to the sea! How depressing. No wonder there is no peace. The Lady herself is punishing all those unjust people who do not acknowledge any of her book, her scales or her sword. Hence she keeps shredding everything that steps into her scales. And that is LADY JUSTICE for you — a blind archangel with a Sword.

PAUL: There isn’t because a right isn’t that kind of thing.

TO THE CONTRARY: A right [ius in Latin from which iustitia = Justice is derived] is what just persons acknowledge is due their fellow human beings. And Paul still doesn’t seem to know what a right actually is even though he claims to be a living Platonic form/idea of liberalism. The 7 liberal arts begin with grammar. Perhaps Paul needs a dictionary.

PAUL: Rhetoric is the art of doing an end-run around what’s really at issue.

TO THE CONTRARY: Rhetoric is the art of persuading those who have common law grammar comprehension, without much logic comprehension, to do what is best for themselves, when the speaker is a just rhetorician, or for himself and his personal buddies, when he is a demagogue. Incidently (sic), Paul ended up doing an “end run” around Israeli Self Defense to an ownership issue.

PAUL: This is why rhetoric abhors philosophy.

TO THE CONTRARY: Rhetoric doesn’t wipe its own ass or abhor anything!

PAUL: And so it should. Philosophy is abhorrent!

COMMENT: The love of wisdom (philosophy) is abhorrent to whom? I suppose that must be “The foolish” rather than “Rhetoric”.

Kevin James “Joseph” Byrne

The Viminitz “Rebuttal” of Socratic Rhetoric

PAUL: I don’t know who this Kevin James “Joseph” Byrne person is, nor can I figure what, if anything, might be his agenda. Of course I’m flattered by his attention. Unfortunately he writes so elliptically that I can’t figure out what he’s saying. Perhaps if he’d take the trouble to reconstruct the arguments he takes himself to be critiquing it would help so we could engage in a genuine dialogue. – PV

The Byrne Counter-Argument

KEVIN: I suppose I can work backwards on this one, even though I usually pick on either the false conclusion or the single most weak premise which leads to an absurdly false conclusion. So I'll start with the last hypothesis, quote:

PAUL: Perhaps if he’d take the trouble to reconstruct the arguments he takes himself to be critiquing it would help so we could engage in a genuine dialogue.

[ N.B. I had “reconstructed” every sentence of his argument! ]

REPLY: Very good. A double hypothesis. In effect

1. IF Byrne (who is suggested to be lazy "takes the trouble") reconstructs the arguments he critiques, THEN it would help. [Who? Byrne? Viminitz?]

2. IF Byrne reconstructs the argument he supposes he is critiquing THEN we could engage in a genuine dialogue.

ARGUMENT: Since we're working backwards from Paul's last sentence, I'll start with the last 2 terms of Paul's last sentence which were "genuine dialogue".

My understanding of a genuine Socratic dialogue is that someone says something which perplexes Socrates, or which offends him [e.g. "Justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger"; Thrasymachus OR "Philosophy is abhorrent."; PV]. So Socrates asks the person to rationally justify that simple statement, (which is no argument), by asking simple critical questions about simple statements (which according to Aristotle address any or all of the following: 1. genus/class, 2. species/definition, 3. property/convertibly-predicable-attribute/accident or 4. a strict accident among the 9 accidents which may be predicable of substances --- the first category of thought and of being), often definitions. [e.g. What is Justice? per the Republic. What is piety? per the Euthyphro]

Arguably, to any competent thinker, every living being has both the power and the right to defend its own existence --- even inanimate objects, like rocks, are difficult to destroy. So the absurd conclusion that ISRAEL DOESN’T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF was the arguably indefensible conclusion of a bad argument which offended me. So my agenda was to critique and to destroy that argument --- not "to reconstruct" the argument.

Strictly speaking, no one is required to "reconstruct entire arguments" in order to refute either absurd conclusions, or ridiculous premises, which lead to absurd conclusions. e.g. I ridiculed the first absurd metonym of your argument which was, requote: "The thing about rhetoric is it can’t afford to ask itself ..."

As an alleged philosopher once said, quote:

VIMINITZ: Still, as a general rule we’d want to say the onus is on me to defend what I did, whereas the onus is on you to condemn me for what I didn’t.¹

COMMENT: According to you, by actual PARITY OF REASONING, the onus is on you to defend your argument and your conclusion and it is upon me to condemn you for not arguing well.

QUESTION: How long and how genuine can any argument be between someone like Socrates and someone who, arguably like Anytus, "thinks" that philosophy is "abhorrent"?

POSSIBLE FINAL COMMENT: In a Socratic dialogue, Socrates asks the "expert" questions and you're the expert according to WHO and WHAT you and the UofL say you are. In this dialogue, I am the ironic "Dummy" who is ignorant and asking the expert my questions. But we can switch in a genuine dialogue and, then I'd tell you that my genuine agenda is to have the University of Lethbridge's lawyers jailed --- both their litigating lawyers and the U of L's in house counsel jailed if possible --- as a consequence of your law case.

So let's now do your reply in Socratic fashion, from the beginning:-

VIMINITZ: I don’t know who this Kevin James “Joseph” Byrne person is.

REPLY: I'm a Roman Catholic major-Socratic guy. I'm your dialectical enemy or your friendly dialogue partner. In short, I'm your friendly neighborhood gadfly.

VIMINITZ: nor can I figure what, if anything, might be his agenda.

REPLY: My agenda was to destroy your argument and "gadfly" you. Your above statement is actual rhetoric. You know what I was doing.

VIMINITZ: Of course I’m flattered by his attention.

REPLY: True rhetoric [in both my sense of persuasion of "just" persons and Paul's of requote "the art of doing an end-run around what’s really at issue." KB]

TO THE CONTRARY: You are in contempt of my attention. You don't like it. You are suspicious of it, which is why you mention "his agenda". You are anything but "flattered" by my contempt for both your argument and your conclusion. Don't try to kid an old Irish Kidder like me. The thing about modern professors is that they can’t afford to [meaning they don't KB] ask themselves what they mean by the words they use. [Paraphrase KB] So they pretend to not know what their questioners mean, as is evident below.

So I ask professors what they mean, as in requote: "QUESTION: Do you mean that my rights or your rights are ... conferred upon us by our enemies! (?)" I too can do that game where one puts a bunch of goofy words in between phrases to obscure meanings or in cases of sophists or casuists to utter bunches of words between contradictions in "order" to obscure the contradictions.

VIMINITZ: Unfortunately he writes so elliptically that I can’t figure out what he’s saying.

REBUTTAL: Right! Either Paul is illiterate or Kevin is "elliptical". So now you have either proved yourself illiterate or described a refutation as "elliptical". Describing an argument as "elliptical" is no proof of the ellipsis. Describing a question as elliptical means the question is loaded. What questions did I beg? Where is my circular argument if that is what you mean by "elliptical"? How about you, Professor Viminitz, instead, prove to me that you are literate by answering the first question I asked after all the sarcastic actual rhetoric I used to set it up? That question was, requote:

KEVIN (requote from my critique): "(COMMENT:) So a 'right' is alienable???"

Or how about you prove to me that you are literate by answering my last question which was, requote

Q. The love of wisdom (philosophy) is abhorrent to whom? 

Since I answered the question as "The foolish", I was telling you that you were foolish. I suppose that was "elliptical" of me. But I wasn't the guy who said that "Philosophy is abhorrent." Do you think that in your wildest imagination that an actual philosopher would not go after you for making such a stupid self-refuting utter garbage statement?

I've said this to Frances Widdowson before and I'll say it again:- People like you and Frances made those "wokesters". You have reaped what you sowed. That's just. It's up to actual philosophers, like me, to refute the idiots who sowed and the weeds they produced even when the weeds honestly refuse to answer questions while the sowers dishonestly refuse to answer questions by feigning illiteracy or "gaslighting" questioners as "elliptical" or both. Keep up with the "genuine" assertion and we can invent a new fallacy describable as "The No GENUINE Dialogue"² fallacy. Your move, DIALOGUE partner.

KB

Dr. Viminitz’ ”Response”

PAUL: Sorry, Kevin. I still can’t follow. Probably my incompetence, since obviously not yours. So I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.

The Dialogue Ends

KEVIN: Very good. Enjoyed your defense and dialogue skill.

Postscript

Socrates:

“And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! - for I must tell you the truth - the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the "Herculean" labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? Well gentlemen I hesitate to tell you the truth but it must be told. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that any of the bystanders could have explained those poems better than their actual authors. … for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected - which is the truth.”³

SOCRATIC RHETORICAL QUESTION: Did Paul Viminitz not like to confess that he did not know, quote “WHY Israel does not have a right to defend itself.” (False), when the direct contradictory logical opposite, quote, “Israel does have a right to defend itself.” (True) is true?

ANSWER (literal): He’d rather feign illiteracy than admit being refuted.

Kevin James “Joseph” Byrne

1. "https://paulosophicalvimplications.org/2024/01/28/the-relevance-of-some-concepts-of-law-to-contemporary-cancel-culture/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

3. Apology: 22a through 23c