All socrates is a man? Help me fix this syllogism.

[jacobbrownacro]

So here is your archetypal syllogism.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal

This is an AAA:1 syllogism which can also be stated like this.

All S are M
All M are P
Therefore all S are P

When I put an "all" in front of Socrates the major premise it no longer makes sense.

All Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

Why is this?

[Eodnhoj7]

So here is your archetypal syllogism.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal

This is an AAA:1 syllogism which can also be stated like this.

All S are M
All M are P
Therefore all S are P

When I put an "all" in front of Socrates the major premise it no longer makes sense.

All Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

Why is this?

Actually it still makes sense considering "all" can encompass "1". If I say "all of me" it still may reference 1 me. All Socrates can equate to 1 Socrates, and while standard grammar may frown on the wording, it is still logical.

[Impenitent]

some socrates have yet to imbibe hemlock

-Imp

[surreptitious57]

When I put an all in front of Socrates the major premise it no longer makes sense

All Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

Why is this

There is only one Socrates but there are many men so it is not actually
necessary to say All Socrates since that is all there can ever be anyway

Unless you were referring to all men called Socrates in which case it would be

All Socrates are men
All men are mortal
Therefore all Socrates are mortal

[FlashDangerpants]

So here is your archetypal syllogism.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal

This is an AAA:1 syllogism which can also be stated like this.

All S are M
All M are P
Therefore all S are P

When I put an "all" in front of Socrates the major premise it no longer makes sense.

All Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

Why is this?

The major premise there is that all men are mortal. Don't be fooled by the ordering of the sentences, sort them by specificity.
Are you certain it's a triple A syllogism? I'm pretty sure it only has one A and two Is

We're not doing your homework here are we? I feel like at this time of year we always get a question about syllogisms.

[jacobbrownacro]

[/quote]
The major premise there is that all men are mortal. Don't be fooled by the ordering of the sentences, sort them by specificity.
Are you certain it's a triple A syllogism? I'm pretty sure it only has one A and two Is

We're not doing your homework here are we? I feel like at this time of year we always get a question about syllogisms.
[/quote]

It is an AAA:1

I checked. This is from the wiki on syllogisms.


M:Men
S:Greeks P:mortal
Barbara (AAA-1)
All men are mortal. (MaP)
All Greeks are men. (SaM)
∴ All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)

[Eodnhoj7]

The major premise there is that all men are mortal. Don't be fooled by the ordering of the sentences, sort them by specificity.
Are you certain it's a triple A syllogism? I'm pretty sure it only has one A and two Is

We're not doing your homework here are we? I feel like at this time of year we always get a question about syllogisms.
[/quote]

It is an AAA:1

I checked. This is from the wiki on syllogisms.


M:Men
S:Greeks P:mortal
Barbara (AAA-1)
All men are mortal. (MaP)
All Greeks are men. (SaM)
∴ All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)
[/quote]

The statement is logical, just a higher archaic form of grammar they will probably fail you for in English...but still logical. If you want a legitimate opinion pm: averroes, timekeeper or philx.

I am currently working out foundations in logic, along with issues in contradictions, so whatever I say take with a grain of salt.

[Averroes]

So here is your archetypal syllogism.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal

This is an AAA:1 syllogism which can also be stated like this.

All S are M
All M are P
Therefore all S are P

When I put an "all" in front of Socrates the major premise it no longer makes sense.

All Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

Why is this?

You are right about this! In fact, the argument: "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal," is not strictly Aristotelian! It occurs nowhere in the writings of Aristotle. Here, I have to congratulate you for having remarked this on your own, if indeed it was on your own! I realized this through reading some materials on logic many years ago (possibly Russell's writings), and not on my own!! Fortunately for you Wikipedia has an article on that. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic#Singular_terms

For now, if you are going through an exam then just take it as you have been taught! Later, if you go into First Order Logic, this problem is taken care of. Do not worry too much about this, as there is indeed a problem!

[TimeSeeker]

This cannot be fixed in Aristotelian logic or any logic which does not recognize abstract types from the things they represent.

Because English is implicit not explicit the structure of reality (context) is lost in translation . A man is a TYPE of a thing. Not a thing. Every man has certain properties - like a name and mortality. This structure is left out of the original syllogism.

So lets define your propositions in Type theory (I am just going to use the Ruby programming language). Here is the definition of a Man

class Man

attr_accessor :mortal, :name

def initialize(name)
@name = name # IMPLICITLY: All men have a name
@mortal = true # EXPLICITLY: All men are mortal
end; end

Right now all we have is an abstract definition of a 'Man', but not been explicit IF any men actually exist! The set of 'all men' is empty.

all_men = []

Lets create some men. For each name in the list we will create an 'Man' and we will add them to the set "all_men". This is called inheritance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritan ... ogramming) )

[ "TimeSeeker", "jacobbrownacro", "Socrates" ].each do |name|
all_men << Man.new(name) # Create an instance of a Man and add it to the set all_men
end

But apparently the name "Socrates" is not all that unique. There is ANOTHER Socrates!

all_men << Man.new("Socrates")

Now lets do some arithmetic. How many men are there?

> all_men.size
=> 4

What are their names?

> all_men.map { |i| puts i.name }
TimeSeeker
jacobbrownacro
Socrates
Socrates

Now here are your statements:

All Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is Mortal.

I am going to turn them into questions so they are easier to work with.

Q: Are all entities whose name is "Socrates" of type 'Man' ? (All Socrates is a man?)
A: Yes. Both of them.

all_men.collect { |entity| entity.class == Man if entity.name == "Socrates" }.compact
=> [True, True]

Q. Are all men mortal?
A. Yes. All four of them.

all_men.map { |i| i.mortal }
=> [true, true, true, true]

Q: Is Socrates mortal?
A: Yes. Both of them.

all_men.collect { |i| i.mortal if i.name == "Socrates" }.compact
=> [true, true]

You can play with the code here: https://repl.it/repls/PrivateFlippantWheel

Or you can just observe that the statement "All Socrates" contains exactly 1 element. And that one element is a man.
Or in the scenario I contrived in the code above. The correct statement is "All Socrates are men" (both of them).

[FlashDangerpants]

The major premise there is that all men are mortal. Don't be fooled by the ordering of the sentences, sort them by specificity.
Are you certain it's a triple A syllogism? I'm pretty sure it only has one A and two Is

We're not doing your homework here are we? I feel like at this time of year we always get a question about syllogisms.

It is an AAA:1

I checked. This is from the wiki on syllogisms.


M:Men
S:Greeks P:mortal
Barbara (AAA-1)
All men are mortal. (MaP)
All Greeks are men. (SaM)
∴ All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)

Well isn't this embarrassing for me? Here I am warning somebody else not to confuse grammar with logic and I went and did it myself in the next sentence. I suppose another way of saying "all" is to say "excluding none", so "all Socrates == thing" is the same logcally as "no Socrates != thing".

[TimeSeeker]

Because I am bored I've tried to make the code more readable for non-programmers. https://repl.it/repls/SilverCalculatingSorting

Man.new('TimeSeeker')
Man.new('jacobbrownacro')
Man.new('Socrates')

puts "How many men are there?"
puts Man.all.count
# Answer: 3

puts "Are all men mortal?"
puts Man.all.find { |man| not man.mortal }.nil? # Look for falsifier. Any immortal man means the answer is 'No'
# Answer: True

puts 'Is Socrates mortal?'
puts Man.all.find { |man| man.name == "Socrates" }.mortal
# Answer: True

puts "And God said: Let Socrates be immortal! **waves magic wand**"
Man.all.find { |man| man.name == "Socrates" }.mortal=false

puts "Are all men mortal?"
puts Man.all.find { |man| not man.mortal }.nil?
# Answer: False

puts 'Is Socrates mortal?'
puts Man.all.select { |man| man.name == "Socrates" }.find { |man| not man.mortal }.nil?
# Answer: False

puts "Are all men NOT named Socrates mortal?"
puts Man.all.select { |man| man.name != "Socrates" }.find { |man| not man.mortal }.nil?
# Answer: True