Skip to main content

Logic

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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mourning loss as a philanthropy worker and mom

As a new mother, I see my daughter growing up in a world in which there is no Mohammad Ali.  I am writing as a mourning mom. By the time my daughter goes to a healthy school , and learns about Dr. King, will she also learn about Muhammad Ali? Who will she look up to as the ethical leaders of her generation? Who will she look up to, to show her how to laugh in the face of xenophobia? How to joke in the face of racism? Sure, we will watch the videos, read the books, and do our best to teach our kids what is truly important. That social emotional skills matter. That people matter. That culture matters. That faith matters. That what matters most is that we are all in this together.   Our interdependence requires us to step outside of our comfort zones and engage people who are different from us who don’t think the same way we do. Philanthropy seems more akin to academia, removed from the actual needs of people, producing and disseminating research to the people who are our...
Post a Comment
Read more

Revolution II: The Electoral Process

I spent my entire fall semester organizing, mobilizing, surveying, educating and empowering young South Asian Americans for the 2004 election. As a Fellow with South Asian American Voting Youth ( www.SAAVY.org ), I was part of a national campaign that registered over 1500 people, and mobilized twice that number to the polling booths on November 2nd. I did this organizing work for many reasons--personal, political, social reasons why I believe this sort of work is crucial in the SA community. The basic premise, of course, is that full democratic participation is good. Given my new found classic conservatism, I cannot wholly accept this premise. Moreover, I do not think people can vote for revolutions through the ballot. Candidates that are extreme in any way, or markedly different, are rarely successful in American political history. In times of war, people have relinquished freedoms for the illusive notion of security. We are socialized to fear the Other, the scary Arab or Muslim man w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love...
7 comments
Read more