You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Philarete

['Member']Joined: August 23, 2018 at 11:07Last active: January 30, 2019 at 10:163 discussions6 comments

Discussions (3)

Comments

In: Self-explanatory facts  — view comment
I think that the answer is no, in this particular case : a brute fact is a fact which isn't grounded (explained) by anything at all, even itself. A se...
September 12, 2018 at 09:22
In: Is this argument form valid ? (contradiction through disjunctive syllogism)  — view comment
Thanks a lot ! I take it, then, that this is the proper logical form of the reductio I want to make : (P1) Assume R (P2) (P ? Q) (P3) P ? ~R (P4) Q ? ...
August 24, 2018 at 12:47
In: Is this argument form valid ? (contradiction through disjunctive syllogism)  — view comment
Would something like this work ? P ? Q P ?~R Q ? ~R Hence: ~R
August 24, 2018 at 10:49
In: Is this argument form valid ? (contradiction through disjunctive syllogism)  — view comment
I understand better, thanks for your help. Here's what I am struggling with, then : Take principle P. Consider two philosophical doctrines, X and Y, w...
August 24, 2018 at 06:51
In: Is this argument form valid ? (contradiction through disjunctive syllogism)  — view comment
Hi, Thanks for your help. This is probably because I am not so good with logic, but there is something I don't understand with your answer. The the tr...
August 23, 2018 at 21:53
In: Is this argument form valid ? (contradiction through disjunctive syllogism)  — view comment
Many thanks for your reply. I wanted to make sure of that simple point before asking something more complex. Here's the final form of my argument. Doe...
August 23, 2018 at 13:08
⇧