This post will be extended over a period of time, from this specific post hence will maintain a progressive increase in definition while maintaining the basic axioms:

When observing the nature of Fallacies the problem occurs that the fallacy is subject to not just its own form and function but an inherent range of fallacies which both proceed/recede from it. The Fallacy is merely a Fallacy as they lead to truth statements.

There is one Fallacy: The Fallacy of Fallacy, where all fallacies either directly or indirectly negate themselves leaving the existing argument or logical discourse as self-evident and true in itself with the truth measured in grades of fullness respective from a focal point of relation. All fallacies are a negative boundary to an argument which observe positive boundaries of truth by observing where they are deficient.

The problem of localizing any one truth is that while the truth exists as true, it in itself is incomplete hence contains an element of contradiction and can be equated dually as a fallacy in itself. All localized truths exist dually as fallacies observing an inherent dual nature of true and not true.

All localizations of truth exist as distortions of truth, even when these localizations are negative in nature.

The problem occurs in the respect that the fallacies inevitably negate themselves causing an inversion where they exist dually as foundations of truth with the negative aspects of the fallacies observing an inherent connection of certain axioms within the argument itself. Take the ad-hominum fallacy for example. It observes a fallacy where the argument is directed to the person rather than the argument, however it simultaneously necessitates that the argument comes from a person; hence to attack the argument is to attack the person.



Here is a very basic list:

1) Ad-hominums.

The relativistic subjective angle inherent to all arguments makes them subject to the fallacy of the Ad-hominum, considering all arguments come from the subjective angle of the observer.



2) Equivocation.

Equivocation has the problem in the respect equivocation is subject to equivocation as there are multiple definitions for it.



3) Strawman

Strawman attacks a position the argument does not hold, but this is a problem of relation as all arguments contain inherent axioms not always observable to the position of the arguer yet are "non-observed" foundations. The strawman is a strawman as it prevents any in depth observation or exploration of the subject outside or inside the framework of the argument which determines the framework of the argument.



4) Red Herring

Red Herring is subject to Red Herring as this Fallacy as a statement of Fallacy diverts the argument.



5) Fallacy of Authority

The Fallacy of Authority is subject to the Fallacy of Authority in the respect this fallacy is an appeal to authority of the fallacy itself and the authorities who claim it as a fallacy.



6) The Fallacy of Circular Reasoning

The fallacy of Circular Reasoning is subject to the fallacy of circular reasoning in the respect that all circular reasoning is fallacious because it is circular.



7) No-True Scotsman Fallacy

The fallacy of the "No-True Scotsman" is in itself a "No-true scotsman" as it claims no degree of purity is available in an argument yet this is a pure argument.



8) Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to ignorance is an appeal to ignorance as the fallacy appeals to the ignorance of a party in the respect those ignorant of the argument revert to it.



9) False Dilemma/False Dichotomy

False Dilemma/False Dichotomy is subject to its own nature as it is either a False Dilemma or a False Dichotomy in one respect, while respectively it is either a Fallacy or Not a Fallacy.



10) Slippery Slope (long causal chain leading to ridiculous outcomes)

The Slippery Slope is subject to its own nature as ridiculousness is subject to personal interpretation with inevitably calling all relativistic ally long causal chains ridiculous which in itself is redicious as "length" is a statement of relation.



11) Hasty Generalization (general statements without sufficient evidence to support them)

Hasty Generalization is subject to its own nature as this is a generalization arguing against generalities considering all generalities cannot necessitate sufficient evidence when evidence is a general term.



12) Tu Quo Que Fallacy (appeal to hypocrisy by diverting blame)

Tu Quo Que is subject to its own nature as it is a diversion of blame towards a fallacy.



13) Causal Fallacy (any logical breakdown/absense with identifying a Cause)

The Causal Fallacy is subject to its own nature as it requires a continuous chain of causes to identify it which eventually breakdown over time.



14) Post Hoc (something as cause because it came first)

Post Hoc is subject to its own nature as it is the first cause of contradiction on its own right.



15) Fallacy of Sunk Cost (continuing project because of sacrifices for it).

The Fallacy of Sunk Cost is subject to its own nature as this fallacy is subject to a problem of continuity where this fallacy and all other fallacies must continually be applied as a sacrifice for truth.



16) Appeal to Pity (argument for compassion)

Appeal to Pity is subject to its own nature as it is an appeal that emotion must be seperate from the argument which necessitates an emotional stance of objectivity where a form of ruthlessness is involved.



17) The Bandwagon Fallacy

The Bandwagon Fallacy is subject to its own nature as the fallacy is determined by a group opinion.



Now, examples aside, all fallacies exist as tautologies.



The nature of all definition, whether empirically or abstractly (through intuition/reason), is dependent upon a tautology where a framework, and the definitions stemming from the framework as frameworks in themselves, effectively replicates. This replication observes a tautologies as both directed and moving.

Now in respect to the nature of the contradictions contradicting themselves, what we see is a threefold nature within all fallacies (at minimum).

1) They are continual forms of negation in the respect The fallacies continually negates and acts as a negative boundary to truth where x axiom(s) may be negated according to y fallacy, however the axiom(s) are deemed as deficient according to the fallacy with the fallacy observing a connection to further axiom(s).

So for example axiom "a" observes the fallacy of authority. What this fallacy observes is the axiom is defined by what it is not, in this case an extension of an authority figure as the foundation of it. In simpler terms, to say axiom "a" is a fallacy of authority, is to say the axiom is deficient due to an authority being referenced as the source.

In a dual respect the fallacy acts as a connector between one axiom and another, thus observing a relation between axioms and necessitating the existence of one axiom through another. For instance axiom "a" existing as a fallacy of authority observes an authority figure exists as one axiom that is connected to axiom "a". Under these terms the fallacy is an observation of a dual set of axioms (axiom "a" and the axiom resulting from the fallacy) effectively existing as 1.

In these respects all fallacies observe the connection of axiom(s) and do not exist in and of themselves as laws.

2) The fallacies as tautologies existing through tautologies, observes the fallacy existing through further fallacy of both it itself and respectively separate fallacies.

So where the fallacy of -a applied to its own nature as -a results in the cancelization of the fallacy into an axiom. So the fallacies of authority, as contradicting itself results in authority as an axiom of logic.

In a dual respect where fallacy -a suffers from fallacy -b , and vice versa we can observe both fallacies cancel dissolve into the axioms of logic as a and b. For example the fallacy of authority is subject to the bandwagon fallacy and vice versa. Thus both fallacies negates themselves leaving both "authority" and "group agreement" as axioms but simultaneously as connected being "authority as group agreement".

In these respects all fallacies as tautologies through tautologies exist as under a self dissolving nature resulting in further axioms.


3) All fallacies are merely points of inversion. They invert in such a manner where one fallacy results in another; hence a unified fallacy results in multiple fallacies. So the fallacy of authority inverts to a fallacy of bandwagon (authority as one to authority as many). In these respects all fallacies are connected as one point and that is fallacy as a form of defiency.

As points of inversion they observe all axioms as directives simultaneously exist exist fully in themselves as themselves through which all further axioms are connected. So for example the axiom of authority is connected to all other axioms, in one degree or another either directly or indirectly. "Authority" as a pure axiom, in the respect it is directed to further axioms as itself though itself, observe authority (and hence the axiom as an "axiom") purely as directed movement.

This axiom of authority, as effectively all axioms, observes a dual nature as void in the respect The axiom inverts from one axiom into many with many axioms being inverted into one. So authority takes on a negative role as not a thing in itself but rather a negation of axioms into many axioms where "authority" becomes a void that results in a separation of axioms into many through negation. I may have to extend further on this.