I recall a class in Aristotelian philosphy in grad school.

I got as far as "therefore not all cats are black," and did
not see how that was helping me much -- so I turned my
thoughts to other topics.

Is it pretty much a world-wide consensus that Aristotle was
right about this stuff?

UD

"I got as far as 'therefore not all cats are black,' and did
not see how that was helping me much -- so I turned my
thoughts to other topics."

I think I could have guessed that.

Aristotle was, after all, human. As a human, he likely made lots of mistakes. It is likely that he got some "stuff" right, some "stuff" wrong. So, it would depend greatly, if we knew what "stuff" specifically, you were talking about. In regards to the statement you attributed to Aristotle, "therefore not all cats are black," I would say, yes, here is universal agreement that not all cats are black.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I got as far as 'therefore not all cats are
> black,' and did
> not see how that was helping me much -- so I
> turned my
> thoughts to other topics."
>
> I think I could have guessed that.
>
> Aristotle was, after all, human. As a human, he
> likely made lots of mistakes. It is likely that he
> got some "stuff" right, some "stuff" wrong. So, it
> would depend greatly, if we knew what "stuff"
> specifically, you were talking about. In regards
> to the statement you attributed to Aristotle,
> "therefore not all cats are black," I would say,
> yes, here is universal agreement that not all cats
> are black.


Good start then -- I can depend upon Aristotle's use of
a subject, a negative quantity, a positive quantity,
and a deductive "all," "none," or "some."

Or can I?

How do I know which parts of his teaching to accept,
and which parts not to accept? I do not expect an answer.
I'm just looking for the origins of simple logic, as
first set down for study and preserved for our use today.

If I do not comprehend the origins of teaching concerning
logic, then where else would I begin, in attempting to
trust that I was learning its rules properly?

UD

Since any authority can be affirm a falsehood, no authority can be relied on for the truth.

That applies to Aristotle as well, we can not rely on the claims of an individual, even Aristotle, for the truth.

Any claims that Aristotle made, even in regards to the nature of logic, could be in error. This is why science relies on the scientific method, to test claims, rather than the claims of the scientists.

The first lesson in logic for you is:

Do not assume that because something is said by an expert, that it is true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 04:47AM by MJ.

>This is why science relies on the scientific method,
>to test claims

So then, like simple arithmetic, the rules of simple
logic have been examined and verified by the scientific
method, and we can rely upon their perfection, up to
some particular point?

No doubt, like all scientific knowledge, there is a lack
of consensus regarding the more complex and arcane extensions
of the subject.

But I'll be content to learn something about simple logic,
and how I can use it in my non-specialist's life.

UD

There is a difference between the human understanding of logic, and the reality of logic.

Just like there is a difference between the human understanding of the universe and the reality of the universe.

AGAIN, what humans can and can not do or understand does not change the true nature of LOGIC or THE UNIVERSE.

Logic is likely better understood as a discovery instead of an invention or a teaching. Logic and math are very close cousins. At its essence much of logic is undeniable as long as we have common ground in our use of language.

You can really only root out bad logic by using good logic. Good, sound, logic cannot be defeated. Yes, Virginia, not all cats are black. I'll stake my life on it.

Nobody invented the idea that two plus two equals four. We simply discovered it. The same goes for the core of logic.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logic is likely better understood as a discovery
> instead of an invention or a teaching. Logic and
> math are very close cousins. At its essence much
> of logic is undeniable as long as we have common
> ground in our use of language.
>
> You can really only root out bad logic by using
> good logic. Good, sound, logic cannot be
> defeated. Yes, Virginia, not all cats are black.
> I'll stake my life on it.
>
> Nobody invented the idea that two plus two equals
> four. We simply discovered it. The same goes for
> the core of logic.


Thank you -- I feel like I'm back in Kansas again.
I'm sure that some of us employ logic in productive
ways all through our lives -- just like some of us
stumble upon the rules of arithmetic without formal
education.

I doubt very much that I have always done so, however.
So I'll just leave it at that and say thanks and good night.

UD

Make sure you are back in Kansas BEFORE you try to have a discussion with me?

Oh, and forgive me for assuming that you understood the most basic concepts of logic, like the concepts Tall Man, Short Hair explained. I mistakenly assumed that you would have that much of an understanding before you jumped into the discussion. I will not make that mistake again. Again, sorry for the error on my part.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 05:22AM by MJ.

Looks like you entered the discussion with him. Get the premise right...

Uncle Dave did address me in that other tread.

You really should get your facts straight before you try to have a discussion with me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 11:20AM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 11:21AM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 11:21AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uncle Dave did address me in that other tread.
>
> You really should get your facts straight before
> you try to have a discussion with me.

I'd be happy to change my posting name to "Uncle Dave,"
if that would help us get our _facts_ straight here.

But the "facts" are -- as I experienced them -- that I
addressed a topic under discussion without clarifying
my purpose or interest, and the immediate result was
a conversation on the internal validity of logic, rather
than on the ways that people attempt to employ logic
in order to determine answers to questions.

Had I started my own thread, concentrating upon my
particular interests, rather appearing to question
the rules of logic, perhaps the discussion would have
been more congenial.

But I'm here to make discoveries, and I count even a few
frustrating exchanges as being worthwhile in the long run.

Uncle "Dave"

It was clearly a continuation on the discussion of logic.

Or are you going to go so far as to deny that as well? My, how desperate you are to find SOMETHING wrong with what I have said.

It seems clear to me that Tall Man, Short Hair's post addressed your OP as a continuation of the logic thread and you had no problem with that, but when I do likewise, there is a problem.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 12:53PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Or are you going to go so far as to deny that as
> well? My, how desperate you are to find SOMETHING
> wrong with what I have said.
...

No -- I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in you
as a person or in finding something right or wrong
about you.

But my discussion with you did help me with my own
questions. For one thing, it helped me see that how
I formulate a posting here can have unintended
consequences -- and that there are circumstances in
which I should make a better effort in clarifying my
interests and intentions -- or else say nothing at all.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> ...
> > Or are you going to go so far as to deny that
> as
> > well? My, how desperate you are to find
> SOMETHING
> > wrong with what I have said.
> ...
>
> No -- I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in
> you
> as a person or in finding something right or wrong
>
> about you.
>

My f'n gawd. My statement was "...to find SOMETHING wrong with what I have said." pay particular note to "... what I have SAID." Emphasis added.

And now you are trying to make it out as if I am talking about ME PERSONALLY, as a PERSON????

Seriously, that is a pathetic troll post. (and do note I was talking about the POST, not you personally.)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 01:30PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> And now you are trying to make it out as if I am
> talking about ME PERSONALLY, as a PERSON????
...

If so, it was inadvertent.

Whatever facts might be developed in these sorts of
exchanges will continue to hold my interest -- and
perhaps prove useful in the long run.

It does not matter to me whether or not _you_ are the source
of any such facts. If what you say conveys information
of use to me, then that communication in and of itself
will be worthwhile, regardless of your identity,

I have no interest in who you are, nor in your thinking
about what I "make out" your postings to be.

UD

"No -- I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in you
as a person or in finding something right or wrong
about you."

That looks like a quite a deliberate, specific, unambiguous, advertent, deliberate, intentional, and planned statement aimed at making this personally about me.

Then to try to deny intent? PATHETIC.

And evidently you do care about me as a person (for good or bad), or you would NOT have deliberately and inappropriately made this about me personally. There was no legitimate reason for making this about me personally, in any way.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 02:00PM by MJ.

From A History of Western Philosophy:

"Even at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system [Aristotle's syllogistic logic] which is as definitely antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy. This makes it difficult to do historical justice to Aristotle. His present-day influence is so inimical to clear thinking that it is hard to remember how great an advance he made upon all his predecessors"...

"I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples"

bishop Rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From A History...
...
> "I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with
> which we have been concerned in this chapter are
> wholly false, with the exception of the formal
> theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any
> person in the present day who wishes to learn
> logic will be wasting his time if he reads
> Aristotle or any of his disciples"

Interesting observation.

On the other hand, historians help provide context for
our current conclusions -- so, from the historian's
point of view it would not be a waste of time to read
Aristotle and his disciples.

Perhaps a more succinct statement would be that a
person in the present day, who wishes to learn logic,
might still read Aristotle and his disciples, in order
to know what they taught and what effects that teaching
has had upon subsequent development of the subject.

Or so it seems to me. I am not a logician by any stretch
of the imagination.

UD

Look around. Are you in a cave?

I always confuse my ancient Greeks. Aristotle was the guy who lead the 300 Spartans, right?