Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george <greeneg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Picking implies a larger universe of from which ONLY A SUBclass GETS
picked.
On Sep 19, 8:32 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Axioms have no subclasses.
You are WAY TOO ILLITERATE to be writing a dissertation.
You have to be able to PARSE YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE first!
I DID NOT SAY that axioms HAD subclasses! I said you had to PICK
a subclass to be the axioms! I said the axioms WERE a subclass (of
the
universal class of all sentences in the language).
You can pick ANY axiom.
NO, dumbass, you can pick any SENTENCES, PLURAL (or singular, OR
NONE).
BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER your picking of them, THAT PARTICULAR
collection
of sentences WAS AND IS A SUBCLASS (of the whole class), and there is
simply
NOTHING YOU CAN DO about that. THAT'S JUST THE ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
AFTER you have picked your subclass, however you CAN do something:
you can say that your AXIOMS ARE all&only the sentences in precisely
THAT subclass.
If you can pick any axiom then there is no structure directing you or presenting itself.
NOTHING presents ITSELF, DUMBASS. The structure that is imposed here
is imposed BY THE DEFINITION OF A FIRST-ORDER *LANGUAGE* and by the
definitions OF THE BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS OCCURRING in the sentences!
All of that GOT presented BEFORE any sentences got picked! THAT
IS the CONTEXT! That IS the FRAMEWORK! That's what CAUSES the
sentences and
(some of ) their parts TO HAVE TRUTH-VALUES or to be derivable using
the rules
of inference!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- References:
- An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: |-|erc
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: herbzet
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- 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
|