The necessary truth of any truth

It is false that necessarily, Socrates is mortal.

The proposition that Socrates is mortal is a contingent, not a necessary truth. As usual, you are confused about what I wrote.

I wrote, "if all men are mortal, and if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal is a necessary truth".

I did not write that Socrates is mortal is a necessary truth.

You even commit the modal fallacy when you attempt to understand things.

kennethamy wrote:

Why should I?

Because you're sticking your oar in. It really isn't surprising that you haven't made any relevant point, is it?

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

The conclusion of the syllogism is not that Socrates is mortal is a necessary truth.

As a matter of form, are you confirming the conclusion that Socrates is mortal but might not be?

I don't know what you are asking.

He's asking if you agree that Socrates is mortal but might not be.

"Confirming" means, "agree"? Of course the proposition that Socrates is mortal is a contingent, not a necessary, truth.

guigus wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Let me say something a bit less vulgar about "it happens"...there is nothing more necessary then it. Is self NECESSARY!
( if not to be caused thats what FACTS are! )

I'm not convinced of that and I don't think there's any logic behind it. From what I can see, all physical states of affairs are contingent, that is, there's nothing necessary about the existence of the universe, the rising of the sun or the orbits of electrons. There could be absolutely nothing at all but by chance, there isn't. There is something. The only things that are necessary are those things that are logically necessary such as "all bachelors being unmarried men".

And a false truth is like an unmarried bachelor, so every truth must be true.

(Sigh) 1. It must be the case that: every truth is true (and not false) but, 2. It is not the case that: every truth must be true.

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

the proposition that Socrates is mortal is a contingent, not a necessary, truth.

In other words, there is some world where Socrates is immortal, so, in that world the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is false, despite the fact that it follows from the preceding premises exactly as it does in a world in which it is true. In fact:
1) all living men are mortal
2) ughaibu is a living man
3) ughaibu is either mortal or immortal.

It is true in every possible world that if all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. Which is to say, in every possible world, the conclusion follows from the premises. What does it matter that in some possible world it is false that Socrates in mortal? That is also true. But how is that inconsistent (or even relevant) to the necessary truth that the conclusion that Socrates is mortal follow from the premises? Answer, not at all.

You are still committing a version of the modal fallacy. You still think that because a conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, that the conclusion itself should be necessary. And that is a version of the modal fallacy.

So logic is just a futile exercise to kill time

Would it be the case that for you it is the case that "it must be that A is A" but not that "A must be A"?

guigus wrote:

Would it be the case that for you it is the case that "it must be that A is A" but not that "A must be A"?

I too would be interested in kennethamy's response to that. For example, must a tree be a tree? That is to say, is it true that a tree is necessarily a tree?

If it is not true, then there is a possible world in which a tree is not a tree. But what could that mean?

If it is true, it follows that the logical form of the sentence "Every tree must be a tree" is different from that of "Every truth must be a truth", since the first is true but the second is false.

What makes you believe that I think that necessarily A is A, but that I don't think that A is necessarily A? I never said that, and it is not true. I believe (know) both are true.

So logic is just a futile exercise to kill time, since none of its conclusions has nothing to do with our concrete lives

So logic is just a futile exercise to kill time, since none of its conclusions has nothing to do with our concrete lives, in which everything is contingent and necessity never applies - you and Fido have much more in common than meets the eye.

guigus wrote:

So logic is just a futile exercise to kill time, since none of its conclusions has nothing to do with our concrete lives, in which everything is contingent and necessity never applies - you and Fido have much more in common than meets the eye.

Actually, just because at least some of the premises of any conclusion about reality will be contingent doesn't mean logic is useless. As I mentioned before, sound deductive arguments make explicit that which was once only implicit. The point of a deductive argument is to preserve truth much like an equation can be manipulated in anyway you like so long as both sides remain equal.

guigus wrote:

So logic is just a futile exercise to kill time, since none of its conclusions has nothing to do with our concrete lives, in which everything is contingent and necessity never applies - you and Fido have much more in common than meets the eye.

Actually, just because at least some of the premises of any conclusion about reality will be contingent doesn't mean logic is useless. As I mentioned before, sound deductive arguments make explicit that which was once only implicit. The point of a deductive argument is to preserve truth much like an equation can be manipulated in anyway you like so long as both sides remain equal.

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:

So logic is just a futile exercise to kill time, since none of its conclusions has nothing to do with our concrete lives, in which everything is contingent and necessity never applies - you and Fido have much more in common than meets the eye.

Actually, just because at least some of the premises of any conclusion about reality will be contingent doesn't mean logic is useless. As I mentioned before, sound deductive arguments make explicit that which was once only implicit. The point of a deductive argument is to preserve truth much like an equation can be manipulated in anyway you like so long as both sides remain equal.

Is that what he is claiming? I wonder how you can tell. But come to think of it, that may be what Ughaibu is claiming too, indirectly, since he seems to be saying that because validity does not yield necessary truths, it is defective. They make unreasonable demands which entail contradictions (like, contingent premises should yield necessary truths as conclusions) and then, when these demands are not satisfied (because to do so would be to do something self-contradictory) they conclude that what cannot satisfy the self-contradictory demand is defective.

Talking about logic without knowing anything about logic not only like trying to row a boat without oars. It is like trying to row a boat without a boat.

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:

So logic is just a futile exercise to kill time, since none of its conclusions has nothing to do with our concrete lives, in which everything is contingent and necessity never applies - you and Fido have much more in common than meets the eye.

Actually, just because at least some of the premises of any conclusion about reality will be contingent doesn't mean logic is useless. As I mentioned before, sound deductive arguments make explicit that which was once only implicit. The point of a deductive argument is to preserve truth much like an equation can be manipulated in anyway you like so long as both sides remain equal.

Of course classic logic is not useless: it is a useful tool in many fields of human activity, but it becomes useless in Fido's and kennethamy's conception, which is what I have pointed out above. Unfortunately you got it wrong by assuming I was defending their point of view, when I was rather criticizing it.

2 According to the so-called “principle” of non-contradiction, it cannot be true that “A is A” and also that “A is not A,” so if A conforms to “A is A,” then it cannot conform to “A is not A” - since its being not A would contradict its being A – or “A cannot be not A.”

3. According to the so-called “principle” of the excluded middle, either it is true that “A is A” or that “A is not A,” so if A does not conform to “A is not A,” then it must conform to “A is A” - by being A rather than being not A – or “A must be A.”

guigus wrote:

2 According to the so-called “principle” of non-contradiction, it cannot be true that “A is A” and also that “A is not A,” so if A conforms to “A is A,” then it cannot conform to “A is not A” - since its being not A would contradict its being A – or “A cannot be not A.”

You're confusing the difference between "cannot" and "is not". If "A" is "A" then "A" is not "not A". You're wrong to say that "A" cannot be "not A". It could be if it wasn't "A". The fact that "A" is "A" isn't necessary.

guigus wrote:

3. According to the so-called “principle” of the excluded middle, either it is true that “A is A” or that “A is not A,” so if A does not conform to “A is not A,” then it must conform to “A is A” - by being A rather than being not A – or “A must be A.”

You're making the same mistake by confusing "must" and "does". If "A" does not conform to "A is not A" then it does conform to "A is A".

Please address these mistakes and actually defend your usage of "cannot" vs. "is not" and "must" vs. "does".

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:

According to the so-called “principle” of non-contradiction, it cannot be true that “A is A” and also that “A is not A,” so if A conforms to “A is A,” then it cannot conform to “A is not A” - since its being not A would contradict its being A – or “A cannot be not A.”

If "A" is "A" then "A" is not "not A". You're wrong to say that "A" cannot be "not A". It could be if it wasn't "A".

Now this is where I came in. It is useless, NR. Even wild horses won't break through this barrier. He is invincible.