2
   

[NEED HELP!] philosophy problem.

 
 
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 12:10 am
1.) Rewrite the following sorite in standard form, including a symbolization key of the letters you use to represent the categories. Show by means of appropriately labelled Venn diagrams that (vi) follows validly from (i)-(v):

(i). All writers who understand human nature are clever.
(ii). No one is a true poet unless he can stir the hearts of men.
(iii). Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.
(iv). No write who does not understand human nature can stir the hearts of men.
(v). None but a true poet could have written Hamlet.
--------------------------------------…
(vi). Shakespeare was clever.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 6,877 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 01:06 am
@jackielai,
You've got one hell of a nerve, I must say. The members here will be glad to give you valuable advice, critque your ideas and generally help with homework. But I doubt that anybody will volunteer to write your damn paper for you!
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 01:11 am
@jackielai,
jackielai wrote:

1.) Rewrite the following sorite in standard form, including a symbolization key of the letters you use to represent the categories. Show by means of appropriately labelled Venn diagrams that (vi) follows validly from (i)-(v):

(i). All writers who understand human nature are clever.
(ii). No one is a true poet unless he can stir the hearts of men.
(iii). Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.
(iv). No write who does not understand human nature can stir the hearts of men.
(v). None but a true poet could have written Hamlet.
--------------------------------------…
(vi). Shakespeare was clever.

...my informal perspective:
Shakespeare is a true poet because he wrote Hamlet
Shakespeare can stir the heart of men because he is a true poet
Hamlet the work of a true poet, Shakespeare, stirs the heart of men and thus understands human nature
Thus if given all writers who understand human nature are clever, and Shakespeare, the poet/writer, understood human nature in Hamlet, one necessarily concludes that Shakespeare must be clever !
...now get the symbols in place...do something !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 01:30 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

jackielai wrote:

1.) Rewrite the following sorite in standard form, including a symbolization key of the letters you use to represent the categories. Show by means of appropriately labelled Venn diagrams that (vi) follows validly from (i)-(v):

(i). All writers who understand human nature are clever.
(ii). No one is a true poet unless he can stir the hearts of men.
(iii). Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.
(iv). No write who does not understand human nature can stir the hearts of men.
(v). None but a true poet could have written Hamlet.
--------------------------------------…
(vi). Shakespeare was clever.

...my informal perspective:
Shakespeare is a true poet because he wrote Hamlet
Shakespeare can stir the heart of men because he is a true poet
Hamlet the work of a true poet, Shakespeare, stirs the heart of men and thus understands human nature
Thus if given all writers who understand human nature are clever, and Shakespeare, the poet/writer, understood human nature in Hamlet, one necessarily concludes that Shakespeare must be (WAS) clever !
...now get the symbols in place...do something !
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:11 am
@jackielai,
What's this now? What's this got to do with philosophy? My advice is ask a secretary for help. Philosophy is about thinking, not about producing lame proofs for something that is a matter of opinion.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 11:00 am
@Cyracuz,
...it is a logic exercise Cyr... it does n´t matter what is the claim in place, you could reduce the all thing to X´s n´Y´s...stilll is shameful that these days Kids don´t even try to post an answer to the very homework they bring to the web...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 11:14 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Looks more like an attempt to mystify philosophy and keep people from learning what it is all about.

Here's a logic exercise I came across in a video game:

A man says to you:
If you lie to me, I will kill you with my gun.
If you tell me truth, I will kill you with my knife.

What do you have to say to live?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 02:03 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

What's this now? What's this got to do with philosophy? My advice is ask a secretary for help. Philosophy is about thinking, not about producing lame proofs for something that is a matter of opinion.
Logic is a tool of philosophy, and the syllogism is, next to Identity, or Conservation, the primary tool of philosophy, and I do not mean the greatest, because it is flawed in taking as granted in the major premise exactly what must be proved... The object of syllogism is a definition, and as every form is a definition it can be offered as a theory that can be proved or disproved, and it does offer a measure of knowledge with little investment...Until children can grasp the notion of conservation they must learn in this fashion, by syllogism, and gathering definitions, being able, as it were, to tell the difference between cats and dogs though each has four feet... How essential this is to philosophy is stated by Voltaire: If you would converse with me, define your terms... In the example related to Shakespeare, I think the object is to reduce the statements to a major and minor premise from which the common term is cancelled and combining what remains... Best of luck... I am neither logical nor rational, whatever may be the difference, so expect no help from me...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 02:09 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Looks more like an attempt to mystify philosophy and keep people from learning what it is all about.

Here's a logic exercise I came across in a video game:

A man says to you:
If you lie to me, I will kill you with my gun.
If you tell me truth, I will kill you with my knife.

What do you have to say to live?
Say nothing and kill the man, which, if you believe him and his threat, he has given you permission to do... As master says: Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six...

Yes... They have thrown in proofs or rather, premises having nothing to do with the conclusion, and they should be eliminated as confusing the issue and proving nothing...
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 04:39 pm
@Fido,
If...
A man says to you:
If you lie to me, I will kill you with my gun.
If you tell me truth, I will kill you with my knife.

You say: You will kill me with your gun.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 04:43 pm
@Cyracuz,
Or ask Bertrand Russell's barber ! Wink
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 05:14 pm
@fresco,
Yep. Goes to show that logic isn't always a way out of a snare. It can lead you to some serious misapprehensions. Smile
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 07:27 pm
@Cyracuz,
...and you believing the qualification of "misapprehensions" makes any sense out of the scope of logic...
...ain´t that something... Rolling Eyes
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 09:01 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

If...
A man says to you:
If you lie to me, I will kill you with my gun.
If you tell me truth, I will kill you with my knife.

You say: You will kill me with your gun.
Why say anything... The coy man neither lies nor truths.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 09:39 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I believe that I didn't quite catch your meaning there...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 09:49 am
@Cyracuz,
Truth, except by the most general definition is impossible to tell because it is impossible to know, and since life is change so is the truth subject to change, and while the most certain way to lie is to try to tell the truth this should only be done out of necessity, and since the riddle presents no necessity, as the person in question is not required to tell either truth or lie, but is only presented with consequences for doing so, then why do so since death is certain???
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 11:18 am
@Cyracuz,
...is quite simple to get what I meant...
How can you qualify a "misapprehension" when truth cannot be related anywhere to it ???
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 01:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
truth now? Wink
i'd rather go with what works... some people insist on something being logical even if it doesn't work...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 04:38 pm
@Cyracuz,
...lol you not me are the one who refers to the truth by naming what is false or has you said a "misapprehension"...that was the point of my 2 previous posts you just did n´t get it...but then who know´s maybe your posts are just a figment of my imagination...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 06:00 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I do not know what you are on about. I'm just saying that logic cannot always provide useful answers, and believing that it can may lead you to some conclusions that just don't work.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » [NEED HELP!] philosophy problem.
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/27/2017 at 09:49:27