Okay here it is:

Proponents of weightlifting claim that lifting weights can make weak muscles become strong. The problem with this claim is its obvious circular reasoning. For the ability to lift weights presupposes muscular strength to begin with. Thus one would need to be strong already to become strong. But this is clearly begging the question. Thus the notion of weight training has been shown to be logically incoherent.

The question is how would you respond to this? Is there any merit to the argument?

  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the checkmark to reward the contributor. – J D Mar 3 '20 at 3:17
  • Do you even lift bro :) – y chung Mar 3 '20 at 3:18
  • 2
    "Proponents of weightlifting claim that lifting weights can make weak muscles become strong". No, weight lifting makes weak muscles stronger. Tearing down and repairing muscle tissue strengthens the bundles. Some strength is required to lift, but repetition increases strength and does not make strong. To make strong and to make stronger are two related, but different ideas. – J D Mar 3 '20 at 3:20
  • This question is a confirmation that people should not try to do philosophy before they have a doctorate in philosophy ;-p – armand Mar 3 '20 at 3:56
  • 1
    You joined Philosophy SE to ask this? Just get a gym membership and you will find your answer xD – Ajax Mar 3 '20 at 8:10

You're suggesting that people who lift weights must be strong to begin with. It also appears to suggest that all dumbbells are heavy.

In fact, everyone has to start somewhere. Why can't a person who's lifting weights for the first time choose a tiny, relatively light weight?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.