Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:25:56 +0100
OP wrote:
John Jones wrote:Modus Ponens:
If P, then Q.
P. Therefore, Q.
The "If" announces a truth value. So "if P" requires the consideration of another element or object through which a truth value may be ascertained.
Why does "if P" require the consideration of another element or object through which a truth value may be ascertained?
"If P" does not mean this: P may be presented or may not be presented.
Rather, "If P" requires us to consider the non-representation of P as an element.
So if "if P" turns out for P (P is true), and not for the other, unnamed element (R, as I term it) we still need to entertain the idea of that element (R) which P is not if we want to retain the ontological significance of "if" statements.
"If P" then, says P, R. In fact, simply "if" says P, R.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- References:
- An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- An argument against modus ponens
- Prev by Date: Re: how to prove E!x(Fx & Gx) -> Ax(Fx-> Gx)
- Next by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Previous by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|