Logic establishes the laws and rules of such thinking, with the help of which one can establish the truth. However, errors can occur in any logical construction. They can be divided into involuntary and conscious, or rather, into paralogisms and sophisms.
Inattentive error
Paralogism is an unconscious violation of the rules of logic, due to inattention or misunderstanding. From ancient Greek, the term is translated as incorrect reasoning due to a false conclusion.
Even Aristotle at one time divided paralogisms into three main categories - errors in the very foundation of the proof, in its method, as well as the substitution of the theses being proved.
Now the meaning of the paralogism established by Immanuel Kant is used. According to Kant, paralogism is an inference that is incorrect in its form, regardless of the truth of its content. He also singled out transcendental paralogism, which he defined as a false conclusion that has its basis in the nature of human thinking. In other words, he referred to the category of philosophical errors.
Intentional mistake
Sophisms, unlike paralogisms, areintentional logical errors, the purpose of which is to confuse the opponent in the dispute, to pass off a false statement as true.
Such mistakes are not immediately noticeable, but the opponent is distracted from the main thing and turns his attention to secondary and insignificant details.
The term "sophism" originated in ancient Greece, where sophistry as the ability to win disputes was considered a special art. Ancient sophists used specially thought-out logical errors and violations, as well as other elements of psychological influence on listeners. They considered truth relative. Only opinion was important to them in the dispute.
Also, sophisms were used to substantiate absurd and paradoxical phenomena. Absurdity refers to something that is absurd and illogical. Paradoxes arise as a result of insufficient clarity, inconsistency of certain generally accepted principles.
Examples
So, paralogism is an incorrect logical conclusion and reasoning. Often it can be used to prove things that cannot be proven, at least in this way.
A striking example of paralogism is the way some jealous husbands think. Let's say your wife likes the color blue. Based on this, the husband concludes that his wife is cheating on him with a friend who wears a blue suit.
Another jealous man claims his wife is cheating on him with a downstairs neighbor. Because, while hanging underwear on the balcony, the wife dropped her bra on the neighbor's balcony. Husband thinks it was intentionalfrom here he draws his conclusion.
Here it is necessary to cite a few sophisms in order to understand their difference from other logical errors. For example, can an object have some property and not have it at the same time? In the sophism about honey, one asks the other a question: "Is honey both sweet and yellow?" Obviously the answer is yes. Is yellow sweet? No, yellow is not sweet. Hence the conclusion, honey is sweet and yellow, but because yellow is unsweetened, it means that honey can be both sweet and unsweetened at the same time. Or an example about a dog. The dog is yours and he is the father. Conclusion: the dog is your father.
Thus, both sophisms and paralogisms are phenomena of thinking that stimulate and develop logic.
