Excellent. My only quibble is to discard premise 6. I don't think it is necessary and actually I think premise 7 depends on premises 3 and 5, not 3 an...
Here is an argument for the existence of God: 1. If anything exists, then there must be something that exists. 2. If something depends on another for ...
Just to be clear, your post makes it look like Leontiskos was making that assertion; that is not true as Leontiskos was not making that assertion; onl...
Yes, agree. :up: That inferences relies on -follows from- is surely true of deductive arguments; that inductive arguments rely on inference would seem...
"My main point here isn't to suggest that Descartes made an intentional argument proving God by arguing that failure to accept God led to an incoheren...
"Descartes could reply that Sartre has no right to claim externalization on the basis of his methodological doubt." We might ask: Why not? What's wron...
"So there is no permissible metalogical argument as follows: (1 ^ ~1) ? 2 ? 2" Agree, I think; correct me if I have this wrong: by metalogical I take ...
Thanks for the links. So then I think Gensler would say the argument I have is similar to the first of his two circular proofs for modus ponens. The c...
"So my question about the Cogito was, Which sort of "thought" is it?" For Descartes it may only be the former, for Sartre it may be both. Though for S...
"It's very plausible that the thought "2+2 = 4", understood as content or proposition, is timeless, or at least not to be identified with any particul...
Graham --"logic is a normative subject: it is supposed to provide an account of correct reasoning." Agree. This is tangential (in that it is about log...
The cogito may be thought of as pre-ontological insofar as it is not a study of being-as-such and so lacks ontological dimensionality. Cogito is undet...
Waiter: yes sir, of course, here it is. NotAristotle: Was that so hard? ... thank yo-- what the hell is this? Waiter: it's the ribeye sir, rare, with ...
"(2) As to validity, I said that the standard definition of 'valid argument' implies that any argument with an inconsistent set of premises is valid. ...
To say that in a briefer manner: I think -> I doubt -> I am. Bad faith. Hidden fullness. Sense-certainty. Ego. The other. Contradiction. Doubt. Clarit...
(I'm not sure if I'm right to equate pre-reflexion with being-as-such). An instantaneous cogito implies the structure of doubt, that is, suspension of...
You said "(2) As to validity, I said that the standard definition of 'valid argument' implies that any argument with an inconsistent set of premises i...
If someone were asked to "explain the reasoning" for a conclusion, then the inferential steps definitely matter. Although, I would say there's a "logi...
I think that is right, it is arbitrary. Although I would say that an argument can have inconsistent premises and still be valid as long as those premi...
Yeah, I don't get how you get Q from (P or Q) if P is true. And I understand the disjunctive syllogism. I get that your asserting not-P, but I don't s...
Okay, Thanks for writing out that definition using quantifiers. So could I simplify your argument by saying E?A?(B?¬(C?D)) is the definition. I know t...
" ¬?x(P?Q) " where x is an interpretation, P is "all premises are true" and Q is "the conclusion is false." Is there something problematic about writi...
If the first premise were agreed to, that would mean the disjunctive elimination leading to C1 would not work. If P and not-P are accepted, I take it ...
Forget "formal axiomatic system," a contradictory argument is always a problem. The "principle" of explosion directly infringes the law of non-contrad...
Ah, I see, then we will say as a shorthand "invalid" as a way of saying it does not follow, that is, that the conclusion cannot be derived using a pri...
"You can use the rules of inference to derive the conclusion "I am mortal" using a priori reasoning, but you cannot use the rules of inference to deri...
Your argument is that: If logicians have defined validity, then that definition is correct. Logicians have defined validity. Therefore, that definitio...
Besides, if someone gave the argument you gave -- "I am a man and I am not a man. Therefore I am rich" that is a nonsensical argument; the conclusion ...
It seems that that argument would be valid, but only if one accepts that an argument is valid iff there is no interpretation s.t. all premises are tru...
That ((P?Q)?Q), therefore P is not valid, whereas ((A?¬A)?(P?Q)?Q), therefore P is valid, does seem strange to me. Inconsistent premises don't seem to...
One of the main takeaways from this discussion, for me, is that while some formal arguments may be valid, they are not necessarily valid in an informa...
If I am referring to the right quotation, you said: What I responded with --a rule must have been "followed" not merely be "present" and the use of a ...
Comments