Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

**Peace All

I hope you enjoyed Lesson 1

The answers to the question at the end are:

A = Synonym (New), B= Homonym, C = Synonym (Old), D = Paronym

To summarise Lesson 1 = We learnt about the terms that will help us build up the idea of Categories. We learnt that “things” have “names” and “definitions” that “definition” is expressed as a set of Attributes the smallest of which is a single Attribute. A set of Attributes can be called an Adjunct …

Attributes themselves are things in their own right.

Lesson 2 - Developing Categories and working with Propositions

Simple (Incomplex) and Composite (Complex) forms

**There are two basic forms of terms - simple or composite and example of a simple term would be:

“horse” or “man”

And examples of composite forms include:

“a horse runs” or “a man walks”

the composite form can be deemed as either true or false because it is expressed as a “definition” and not as a “name” … “names” cannot be deemed “true” or “false” because they are “declarations” without measurement. A definition can be measured.

By “without measurement” it is inferred that they exist in isolation and are either abstract or concrete, which should not be confused for true or false.

**Predicated of Subjects and In Subjects (Inherence)

**This confusing title simple means that there are constructions that categorise

what is said of a subject
what is in a subject.

**said of

**“James is a man” - So what is being said of James is that he is a man = The predicate (man) is predicated of subject (James)

Note: The above is called a proposition …

The term “the man” although is not a proposition (i.e. a simple sentence) it carries an assocaition to a subject … the terms “the man” and “James” are interchangeable here … because James (is considered definite as is the man) … so the term (the man) is predicated of subject (some certain man).

**in

**However if we consider “Arabic calligraphy” we can say is a term which is in subject (a man). Note: this is an attribute that has been mentally turned in to a “subject” - the subject is hence Attributive or Connotative. It is singular or individual and hence cannot be predicated of a subject.

I’ll leave it here for now and await questions, examples … already it may be getting quite odd to follow but if you allow it to pass then eventually it should begin to fit in place.

2

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

**Groups continued

**Aristotle analysed the pattern in what can be predicated of a subject and what cannot, what is in a subject and what is not, what can be both predicated of a subject and in a subject and what can be neither in a subject nor predicated of a subject.

The examples he gave:

the man - (pedicated of (a certain man) but not in a subject)
this white thing - (not predicated of a subject but in (a body))
science - (both predicated of (grammar) and in (the soul))
a certain man - (neither predicated of a subject nor in a subject)

In every case "individuals" or "singular" things will never be predicated of a subject, however they can be in a subject. Since individuals have been picked out then it follow there are things other than singular things which are called "universals" ...

**Genus (Class) , Species (Sub-Class), Difference, Property, Accidents

**It would be good at this stage to talk from the angle of Carroll's discourse ...

He has called his categories - "classification" . The group of all things in the universe is "Things" - This would be called a Class. We may imagine the Class (Things) and pick from it all things which posses a certain Adjunct which are not possessed by the whole Class. This Adjunct is said to be "Peculiar" to the Class so formed. i.e. by picking this Adjunct we create another "Class" which differs from the Class (Things). Class (Things) would be called "Genus" with respect to the Class so formed, which would be called a "Species" of the Class (Things). Its Peculiar Adjunct would be called its "Differentia".

Now an animal may be brown or white and although a brown animal is different to a white animal these are not considered "Difference" in the respect that they become specific separations, since to be white or brown is not what pertains to animals to be different from one another. However to state "rational animal" this specifies a clear distinction which render it by nature different to other animals.

Differentia are Attributes that make the Class (Species) to which they belong unique to other classes (Species) all of which belong to the a given Genus.

If a thing is existent then it is called "Real" and if it is not existence then is called "Unreal" or "Imaginary".

A Class can contain a single Member and this would be called "Individual" which was mentioned earlier. Hence an "Individual" is a one-member Class.

3

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

Interesting

4

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

Consider the complex thing "bound books" the nature of this defintion informs us of two things. That there is something that there is a class of things called "bound books" and hence by exception there must be a class of things called "unbound books".

When we make this discovery we see that the super class "books" has been "divided" in to two sets (sub-classes) called "co-divisional" classes. They are called "co-divisional" because they are brothers/sisters in parentage of division.

Consider the class (group) "offspring of Ghengis Khan" we can subdivided these in to 2 co-divisional classes as "illegitimate offspring" and "legitimate offspring" ... or we can split them in to another division as "pre-invasion offspring" and "post-invasion offspring" each time we can only vary one factor of "difference" or else we will introduce too many changes for the divisions to be limited to 2. Note: It is imperative that the change in one co-divisional class is exclusive from the other.

For example: Illegitimate offspring cannot be legitimate offspring they are exclusive from one another.

This leads on to the idea of "dichotomy" - say we consider a class and look for special attributes within that class then by creating that smaller class we have actually created the other class which is co-divisional at the same time. We denote that other class by the term "not".

So we have the class "tigers" and we want to look for "white tigers" then by making this distinction we are also making claim that there is a sub-class that we are not interested in and its name is "not white tigers".

Tigers that are white vs Tigers that are NOT white.

Herein is what we call "dichotomy".

However normal language sometimes prevents dichotomy from being specific enough to be worked with for our purposes in logic. Thus, we need to "lay down an arbitary rule" to help ...

For example consider: "old books" the co-divisional class will be "new books" ... but when we sit down to organise a library of books into two piles we need more information. How old is old? How new is new?

We can say any books older than first publish date of 1950 are considered "old" ... which means even if a book was printed in 1987 with first publish date of 1947 it will be categorised in the "old books" pile. We can change that rule so long as all parties agree with it. We can change it to all books printed before 1980 are "old" but then by so doing we will have reorganise the pile of books and we can expect many changes.

**Side note: Often when people argue or present cases of why something is either good or bad you may find that they will unwittingly or cunningly "change the arbitary rule" within an argument in order to sway opinion in a given direction. Look out for this behaviour!

**

5

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

O Mama

yahan logon ko 2+2 4 ke samagh atei nahein, tusee pata naheen kee banana chaonday o

6

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

Peace Gora Kala

Welcome to the Logic Lesson 2 - You said people here can't compute 2 + 2 to equal 4 correctly ... and based on this you ask what motive I have to present these lessons?

Actually the very reason for providing these lessons is to teach people to draw the correct conclusions ... it only appears complicated at the moment because we are defining the tools that we will be using to work out consistency in argumentation.

Let me give you a simple example regarding a subject that is open in Pakistan Affairs. It is regarding the affiliation of Marvi Sermid. She claims quite clearly that "religion in politics is not a solution" for the country and at the same time she does "not support Jinnah" ... already we have 4 groups to contend with. This is how:

Group 1 - "People who do NOT support religion in politics"

the co-divisional group is formed

Group 2 - "People who support religion in politics"

Group 3 - "People who do NOT support Jinnah"

the co-divisional group is formed

Group 4 - "People who support Jinnah"

Now what will be spoken about later is the how these groups will be used to create "syllogisms" but I will explain this briefly here ...

Now the above groups have 2 dichotomies - Group 1 members cannot be members of Group 2 and Group 3 members cannot be members of Group 4.

Marvi is by her own claims a member of the combined group 1 and 3, let's call that 13, by appending the two numbers together.

The other groups that can be formed are 14, 23, and 24 ... (12 cannot exist and 34 cannot exist because they are the dichotomies, but the pairing is irrelevant anyway for they will not be syllogistic).

13 = non Jinnah supporter, irreligious
14 = Jinnah supporter, irreligious
24 = Jinnah supporter, religious
23 = non Jinnah supporter, religious

The majority of the nation are either 14 or 24. The 14 people are openly criticised by Marvi she calls them the Neo-Liberals. The 24 people would be those who are the likes of Zaid Hamid. The group that is often ignored are the 23 ... I prefer to be identified from that group. Now the reason why many people avoid affiliation to Group 3 - those who do NOT support Jinnah is because they can easily be branded unpatriotic. The question however is far more complicated than that.

It's funny because you will find that Marvi and Zaid agree on the position about Jinnah to a certain extent. She argues that Jinnah was not totally secular and hence chastises the Neo-Liberals for claiming Jinnah to be so, but at the same time she chastises Zaid for claiming Pakistan to be built on Islamic values, because she recognises Jinnah not to be totally religious. I agree with her on her position regarding Jinnah, however I disagree with her outlook resulting from this realisation. She concludes that religion cannot be a part of the political structure like Jinnah allowed, I argue that Jinnah only allowed religion to enter the game of politics as a subservient mechanism for gaining more widespread support and hence conclude religion should be the super structure or else injustices will occur and religion will be blamed for them - as has been the case in the history of Pakistan.

Zaid behaves like the Neo-Liberals in reverse. He wants to hijack the motive of Pakistan's creation to be totally Islamic and the Neo-Liberals want to hijack it for the purposes that it was established to be a secular democractic state. My take is that it was established to serve the sole purpose of dividing and conquering a potentially powerful country by a third element - The British. Here it may seem that I am being unpatriotic and people may jump to the conclusion that I do not want Muslims to have their own country. This is not true. What I would like to happen however is that we stop viewing India as an arch enemy, but as a neighbour. The two-nation theory was made to rally support and create a false need that in order for justice to prevail to all denominations of people then the nation cannot remain one single piece, but has to be split and divided. Then the way they went about to divide it served no sense by putting East and West of one country on either side of other. The two-nation theory was so powerful an agent convincing people it was needed when in fact it was not needed.

Here the argument stems from that notion that Muslims will be in charge of their own country and hence will not be oppressed by their Hindu majority counterparts. Instead by creating Pakistan the remaining Muslims in India became even more of a minority and their democratic number count reduced. Unless the split was more complete and no Muslim remained in India then the purpose of the division was counter-productive. It is a shame to see caste like mentalities amongst Muslims in the sub-continent where Muslims of different races separate themselves from one another.

If our strongest affiliation was religion then we would never forsake our brothers and sisters. More than this will go off topic but I am trying to demonstrate how technical knowledge of logic helps people think with greater accuracy and clarity.

7

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

:k:

8

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

**Connection of Subject and Predicate

**In a proposition one thing is predicated of another. The other thing would be the subject ... What is hence predicated of the predicate is also predicated of the initial subject.

A B C
Subject > Predicate
sub-Subject > sub-Predicate

Since B is the predicate of A ... and C is the predicate of B ... it is always true that C is also a predicate of A. This is called inclusiveness. A baby is a type of human which is a type of rational mammal which is a type of mammal which is a type of animal which is a type of living thing which is a type of thing ... so it is true to say that "a baby" is "a thing" - by this pattern of inclusiveness.

The high level groups are called Genera - singular - Genus and the mid level groups are called Species - although these terms are often used in context to the the discussion.

**Differences

**A difference as described above is distringuishing factor that separates one species from another when they both themselves are predicated from the same subject.

For example:

Shape

Circle
Square

Circles and Squares are both sub-classes of the class shape, yet are with each other "differences". However in the following example:

Shape

Red
Blue

These are not differences, because red and blue are themselves not sub-classes of the common class - Shape, they are rather sub-classes of the common class - Colour ... in which case they would be differences. In this case they are called accidents - now accidents differ from properties and that will be discussed later.

9

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

Subject and predicate can be vice-versa too?

10

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

Yes they can ... only where the subject and predicate are synonymous ... such as:

He is Tom ... Tom is He

11

Re: Free Gupshup e-Course - Classical Logic - Lesson 2

:jazak: