In attempting to memorize the 150 or so pages I've read so far this semester from my Logic textbook, I have finally caught on to the basic principles of Logic. These realization come at a good time, within days of my midterm for which I have completed perhaps 30% of the required preparation.
1. You can prove anything from a contradiction. Once you show A & ~A, you can show Q, M, Z, whatever your heart desires. This would suggest that if there is a illogical flow in your thought process, then you can make up any silly thing you want. For example,
Zaid and Ayesha are best friends.
Best friends spend free time together.
It is not the case that Zaid and Ayesha are best friends.
This set would include inconsistent claims. And you can derive truth from a inconsistent set. So it is valid to conclude
I will pass Logic.
The roomate is OCD.
The world is a made of white chocolate.
New Jersey is not a state.
2. Valid arguments do not necessarily have true premises. In order for an argument to be valid, it must only be impossible for falsehood to be derviced from truth. So it is not possible for premises to be true, and the conclusion false. But if your premises are false, you can still arrive at truth, much like Plato does in most of his books. Furthermore, you can have false premises take you to false conclusion--and your argument could still be valid. You can have both false premises and true premises, and then arrive at a valid conclusion. I find this absolutely mind-shattering. E.g.:
Shakir loves Ayesha.
Ayesha is loved by Ayesha.
You cannot logically deduce "Ayesha is loved by Shakir" because there is not always reciprocation in anything. But suppose, you conclude that God is good. This would be a valid argument, even if the conclusion has no connection or relevance to the premise. "Arguments whose conclusions are logically true are deductively valid whether or not their conclusions are related to their premises" (25).
The concept of reciprocation in logic is known as EQUIVALENCE. So
S loves X.
X loves S
is NOT EQUIVALENT. The members of a pair of sentences are logically equivalent, if and only if it is not possible for one of the sentences to be true and the other sentence false. It is possible for S to love X, and X to love P, and not S. X can love any letter of the alphabet given that is the nature of human interaction.
3. Belief does not necessitate truth. Sadia believed X was to be her spouse. This claim has NO truth-functional validity in sentential logic, in which proper grammar and structure facilitate truth. What you believe is not a matter of truth or falsehood because it cannot be shown through derivation rules.
4. I would like to sit at a coffeeshop and show you all the things I learned in Logic. This is my #1 fantasy. That and I fantasize about completing all my reading for the semester in a span of a weekend.
5. To continue in the tradition of inconsistent claims: I acknowledge pain as something real. I also acknowledge experiential theories of well being that say pleasure is the absence of pain. And one end of existence is to experience as much pleasure as it is permissible to do so because pleasure is in short supply in the world. Like the mind-blowing pleasure of a delightful conversation that makes you wake up EARLY for Fajr in the morning, 'cause you feel so incredibly light.
1. You can prove anything from a contradiction. Once you show A & ~A, you can show Q, M, Z, whatever your heart desires. This would suggest that if there is a illogical flow in your thought process, then you can make up any silly thing you want. For example,
Zaid and Ayesha are best friends.
Best friends spend free time together.
It is not the case that Zaid and Ayesha are best friends.
This set would include inconsistent claims. And you can derive truth from a inconsistent set. So it is valid to conclude
I will pass Logic.
The roomate is OCD.
The world is a made of white chocolate.
New Jersey is not a state.
2. Valid arguments do not necessarily have true premises. In order for an argument to be valid, it must only be impossible for falsehood to be derviced from truth. So it is not possible for premises to be true, and the conclusion false. But if your premises are false, you can still arrive at truth, much like Plato does in most of his books. Furthermore, you can have false premises take you to false conclusion--and your argument could still be valid. You can have both false premises and true premises, and then arrive at a valid conclusion. I find this absolutely mind-shattering. E.g.:
Shakir loves Ayesha.
Ayesha is loved by Ayesha.
You cannot logically deduce "Ayesha is loved by Shakir" because there is not always reciprocation in anything. But suppose, you conclude that God is good. This would be a valid argument, even if the conclusion has no connection or relevance to the premise. "Arguments whose conclusions are logically true are deductively valid whether or not their conclusions are related to their premises" (25).
The concept of reciprocation in logic is known as EQUIVALENCE. So
S loves X.
X loves S
is NOT EQUIVALENT. The members of a pair of sentences are logically equivalent, if and only if it is not possible for one of the sentences to be true and the other sentence false. It is possible for S to love X, and X to love P, and not S. X can love any letter of the alphabet given that is the nature of human interaction.
3. Belief does not necessitate truth. Sadia believed X was to be her spouse. This claim has NO truth-functional validity in sentential logic, in which proper grammar and structure facilitate truth. What you believe is not a matter of truth or falsehood because it cannot be shown through derivation rules.
4. I would like to sit at a coffeeshop and show you all the things I learned in Logic. This is my #1 fantasy. That and I fantasize about completing all my reading for the semester in a span of a weekend.
5. To continue in the tradition of inconsistent claims: I acknowledge pain as something real. I also acknowledge experiential theories of well being that say pleasure is the absence of pain. And one end of existence is to experience as much pleasure as it is permissible to do so because pleasure is in short supply in the world. Like the mind-blowing pleasure of a delightful conversation that makes you wake up EARLY for Fajr in the morning, 'cause you feel so incredibly light.
Comments
Post a Comment