I came across a note essay analyzing a certain manga. This is a summary of what I read then.
I don't want to criticize, so I'll leave details out — for example: why did the protagonist act this way here? Because they're deliberately hiding XX feeling! That kind of reading.
As a viewpoint it had a certain interest, but it felt like free interpretation not stated in the story (analysis is kind of that by nature). In other words — isn't this sophistry? I analyzed it while asking ChatGPT.
The result listed reasons that would make it sophistry: "the hypothesis exceeds its premises," "over-meaning assigned to hiding intent," "leap in inference," and so on. Without the premises it wouldn't make sense, so I won't paste that output here — but ChatGPT seems quite strong at this kind of objective verbalization and phrasing.
"Ah yeah, with wording like that it's easier to buy! You said what I wanted to say!" — exactly that kind of expression.
The point here: I got that it was sophistry — but I wanted to think about why it still felt fun.
I didn't feel I needed to allergy-reject sophistry as automatically bad — and I don't even fully know what sophistry is. (So why, reading the note, did I still think "isn't this sophistry?")
In fact, when I read it I felt "Interesting — that reading might also be possible."
I had a "sophistry-ish" jab, but I didn't take it negatively.
So I read a book that discusses sophistry: Argument Over Logic — A Recommendation of Counter-Argumentative Thinking (論より詭弁).
When I searched "sophistry" in my head, I remembered Kindle had such a book. I may have read partway and forgotten, so I reread it as a chance to revisit.
It isn't academic logic — rather it casts doubt on "logical correctness," and interestingly pushes back against the "how to think logically" genre common in business books.
Not thick in pages, but packed with content — a satisfying read.
The style recalls the humorous irony of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan.
Well, setting content aside: the book's claims are varied and mostly bracing — and the question is basically "Should logical correctness be valued that highly?" Not so much dismissing logical correctness as aiming at the "idiots who bludgeon with logic" you often see on SNS.
There are other fun claims too — like "shifting the point isn't necessarily a problem" — so if you're interested, read it.
Coming back to the earlier question after the book: "If it's fun, does it have to be logically correct?"
Whether you agree or disagree is personal sense — but thinking about it itself is fun.
Even wordplay is fun as wordplay; even if it isn't stated in the work, just considering interpretive possibilities is fun.
Once you insert verification of correctness, it cools off. Of course enjoying things under logical correctness is also fun — I don't mean that the other kind of fun is the "real" fun (that feels like an important point).
My head got tangled, and I was writing further, but I stopped knowing what is sophistry and what isn't — so I'll end today with: I felt I can enjoy sophistry too.
Tweet© 2025 ZUUHE