Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:35:43 +0100
OP wrote:
John Jones wrote:OP wrote:[snip]John Jones wrote:
I don't know what is meant by abstraction. Anyway, I argued that not-P
can mean either R, or the elimination of the framework for the expression of P. I don't see any other alternatives.
Can you explain what you mean by "context" or "framework" without using any philosophical language at all? How would you explain them if you really wanted somebody's grandmother to understand them?
Sorry about that. By the 'context of' I mean the framework through which objects are possible or can be manifested. For example, red is found in the context of colour and not sound; physical objects are found in the framework/context of space which allows differences to be manifested. So without the framework of colour no particular colour can be represented. Without the framework for P, neither P nor not-P can be represented.
OK, to me your notion of context or framework sounds completely metaphysical (that is, I reject what I take you to be saying), but here's a question you might find interesting:
Surely not. You wouldn't say that red is a stimulating sound. You wouldn't say that it is not raining by referring to pond water which is being examined under a microscope. Every object has a framework for its manifetstion.
What is the context, or framework, of P? Not P as color, or P as physical object, but P as a logical variable. Just P. In what context or framework are logical statements made?
[snip]
This is why I said that logic reduces instances to a general case. P is any object in any framework.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- References:
- An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- An argument against modus ponens
- Prev by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- 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
|
Loading