Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:36 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:28 pm Now, if I determine that someone is not interested in genuine philosophical dialogue
I am interested in dialogue. Can't you tell?
No, I cannot. Do you actually believe yourself when you claim to be interested in philosophical dialogue?
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:36 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:28 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:05 am
It's only syntactically different. It's semantically equivalent to P.
No, not at all.
Yes, absolutely.

(P -> (P v ⊥)) reduces to P.
You are under the impression that it is logically equivalent, but in no case is it semantically equivalent. You have utilized the grammar of propositional logic to express a tautology, which you then go on to confuse with a proposition within the tautological sentence itself. You seem quite taken with yourself, believing yourself to be an "expert in logic." But what are you actually doing here? Nitpicking in a sophistical manner in order to try to argue for the claim that standalone propositions are in themselves valid syllogisms? Is such a discussion a good use of either of our time?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm No, I cannot. Do you actually believe yourself when you claim to be interested in philosophical dialogue?
Maybe. How's a philosophical dialogue different from non-philosophical dialogue?

I can't be any more explicit. I am participating in dialogue - no idea if it's "philosophical". Maybe it isn't.
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm You are under the impression that it is logically equivalent, but in no case is it semantically equivalent.
It's semantically equivalent.

(P → (P v ⊥)) ↔ P
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm You have utilized the grammar of propositional logic to express a tautology, which you then go on to confuse with a proposition within the tautological sentence itself.
No, I haven't. P is a proposition.

I further proposed that the proposition P implies P or Falsum.
And I further proposed that the above is materially equivalent to P.
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm You seem quite taken with yourself, believing yourself to be an "expert in logic."
Obviously. I've been doing it for 35 years on practically daily basis.
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm But what are you actually doing here? Nitpicking in a sophistical manner in order to try to argue for the claim that standalone propositions are in themselves valid syllogisms?
I am not trying to argue anything. Arguing is a silly sport and participation in it is often a waste of time.

I am merely stating a fact. Standalone propositions are logically valid.

P. Socrates is a man.
C. Socrates is a man.

It is impossible for the premise to be true while the conclusion is false. That's validity, no?
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm Is such a discussion a good use of either of our time?
You don't think learning that you are mistaken is a good use of your time? What are you actually doing here if you aren't here to learn?
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:57 pm And I further proposed that the above is materially equivalent to P.
Sure, I will accept that it is materially equivalent, especially vis-a-vis propositional logic.
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:57 pmI am merely stating a fact. Standalone propositions are logically valid.
If you actually believe these things you peddle, then go ahead and define your terms. "Syllogism," "proposition," "validity," etc. To remind you, your <original claim> was, "A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism."
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:57 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm Is such a discussion a good use of either of our time?
You don't think learning that you are mistaken is a good use of your time? What are you actually doing here if you aren't here to learn?
One does not learn without a worthy teacher.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:57 pm And I further proposed that the above is materially equivalent to P.
Sure, I will accept that it is materially equivalent, especially vis-a-vis propositional logic.
So then? What are you bickering about?

According to you P is a proposition.
According to you (P → (P v ⊥)) is a syllogism
You agree that P is materially equivalent to (P → (P v ⊥))

Therefore the proposition is materially equivalent to the syllogism.
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am If you actually believe these things you peddle, then go ahead and define your terms. "Syllogism," "proposition,", "validity," etc.
Now that's just a silly sport. If you believe your own words you'll define the term "define".
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am To remind you, your <original claim> was, "A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism."
Indeed. And to remind you, you agreed that

1. P is a proposition
2. (P → (P v ⊥)) is a valid syllogism
3. P is materially equivalent to (P → (P v ⊥))
Therefore the proposition P is materially equivalent to the valid syllogism (P → (P v ⊥)).

So without having to provide any definitions, I am simply pointing out that given the way you are using those words a proposition is necessarily synonymous with a valid syllogysm.

Q.E.D
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am One does not learn without a worthy teacher.
Well, I am teaching you that you are mistaken - of that I am certain. But I have no idea whether I am worthy.
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:32 am
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:57 pm And I further proposed that the above is materially equivalent to P.
Sure, I will accept that it is materially equivalent, especially vis-a-vis propositional logic.
So then? What are you bickering about?

According to you P is a proposition.
According to you (P → (P v ⊥)) is a syllogism
You agree that P is materially equivalent to (P → (P v ⊥))

Therefore the proposition is materially equivalent to the syllogism.
Oh, no. You're putting words in my mouth in very strange and inaccurate ways.
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:32 am
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am To remind you, your <original claim> was, "A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism."
Indeed. And to remind you, you agreed that

1. P is a proposition
2. (P → (P v ⊥)) is a valid syllogism
3. P is materially equivalent to (P → (P v ⊥))
Therefore the proposition P is materially equivalent to the valid syllogism (P → (P v ⊥)).

So without having to provide any definitions, I am simply pointing out that given the way you are using those words a proposition is necessarily synonymous with a valid syllogysm.

Q.E.D
I never assented to (2). You're making that up. And your conclusion is insufficient, for the normal meaning of equivalence is not material equivalence, it is formal equivalence.

So again, I don't know what sort of definitions you're using to claim that, "A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism," but they are at best idiosyncratic.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:07 am I never assented to (2). You're making that up.
You don't have to! It's a fact of logical inference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:07 am And your conclusion is insufficient, for the normal meaning of equivalence is not material equivalence, it is formal equivalence.
An equivalence is an equivalence is an equivalence.

The identity law: x ≡ x in logic/Mathematics.

There's no greater equivalence than identity.
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:07 am So again, I don't know what sort of definitions you're using to claim that, "A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism," but they are at best idiosyncratic.
I am using the same damn definitions everyone is using!

Here's the paragon case for a syllogism:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Socrates is mortal.

Here's the stand-alone proposition "All men are mortal" in the form of a syllogism:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. All men are mortal.
C. All men are mortal.

That's a damn syllogism! If you insist otherwise - prove it.
validity, In logic, the property of an argument consisting in the fact that the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
And it sufficiently satisfies the criterion above therefore it's valid.

If you insist otherwise - prove it.
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:08 am I am using the same damn definitions everyone is using!
Well since you have refused to give a definition we have no way to tell, do we?
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:08 amHere's the stand-alone proposition "All men are mortal" in the form of a syllogism:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. All men are mortal.
C. All men are mortal.

That's a damn syllogism! If you insist otherwise - prove it.
Child, that's not a definition, that's not an argument, and that's not a syllogism. I've given you plenty of time to defend your bizarre claims. I think our time is up.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:41 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:08 am P1. All men are mortal.
P2. All men are mortal.
C. All men are mortal.

That's a damn syllogism! If you insist otherwise - prove it.
...that's not a syllogism. I've given you plenty of time to defend your bizarre claims.
It's obvious that this is a syllogism. Your rejection of the obvious is fallacious, irrational and necessarily requires justification, yet you are evading the burden of proof.
syllogysm noun An instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises)
Absolutely nowhere in the definition does it mandate or restrict the two premises from being identical.

Introducing such a constraint amounts to moving the goal posts; and rejecting a valid sylogism because the two premises are identical amounts to the No True Scottsman fallacy.
Leontiskos wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:41 pm I think our time is up.
I agree. You've already stolen far too much of mine.

Why did you lie about being interested in genuine philosophical dialogue?
Post Reply