"THE ARGUMENT"

Michael Fisher (mwfisher@CTS.COM)
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:10:46 -0800

THE ARGUMENT
Major Premise: "All total situations, the constituent elements of
which are factual are total situations which are true."
Minor Premise: "The total situation described by my obligation is a
total situation the constituent elements of which are factual."
Conclusion: "The total situation described by my obligation is a
total situation which is true."

<yawn> been a long day

If this is supposed to be a syllogism, I'm afraid it certainly
is not of any form I can locate, though admittedly my materials and
formal training are limited.

All the syllogisms which seem to be taught require standard form
categorical propositions as the premises and conclusion.

All S are P.

Some S are P.

No S is P.

Some is not P.

Etc.

In other words, a subject and a, as in one, predicate.

Here's Jerry's first "premise":

Major Premise: "All total situations, the constituent elements of
which are factual are total situations which are true."

Plucking out subjects and predicates and substituting variable letters
we get:

Major premise: All S the parts of which are P1 are S which are P2.

Sorry, but this is NOT a standard form categorical proposition.

I'm not quite sure what it is.

It seems to be saying: All S which are comprised of facts, are S
which are true. But we still have no categorical statements to work
with, but we can "rescue" the proposition by considering each phrase one
proposition and constructing a Modus ponens; If A then B; A: therefore,
B.

A = S which are sets of facts

B = S which are true

IF S are sets of facts THEN S are true; S is a set of facts: THEREFORE S
is true.

--->Which seems to make the stunning observation that facts are true.

But at least THAT is a categorical proposition.

Jerry's "minor premise":

Minor Premise: "The total situation described by my obligation is a
total situation the constituent elements of which are factual."

Letting S continue to = "total situation"

And P1 continue to = those "factual" things, i.e., facts

Minor Premise: The S which is P3 is an S of which the P4 are P1.

So since the P4 are P1, we can substitute,

The S which is P3 is an S which is P1.

Which looks to be merely definitional.

P3 = " my obligation "

P1 = facts

Substituting back in;

The S which is my obligations an S which is factual.

S which are factual are true (from the "first premise")

Therefore my obligation is true (???)

--->Whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

Jerry's "conclusion":

"The total situation described by my obligation is a
total situation which is true."


The S which is P3 is an S which is true.

HEY lookit there!!

Jerry gets to the same conclusion! His obligation, which I
believe was to prove the inspiration of the Bible is "true".

Impossible, but nonetheless a true obligation which he
voluntarily assumed.

Now, if this is not what he set out to prove, he needs to
undertake a severe overhaul of his "Argument".

I would suggest a text book on logic and practicing writing
categorical propositions.

Ciao.

-- 
	Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student	

http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994

* * * He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine

==================================================================== For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.