[NEED HELP!] philosophy problem.

Can´t you see that you are not detracting from Logic but simply trying to provide a sort of new frame for it ? Now you remind me Steven Hawking´s saying Philosophy was dead while posing major philosophical questions and engaging in philosophical activity...you are being naive when trying to criticize the logic of logic..."what works" needs some logical frame to work, in fact it establishes what logic is by working !
...what might be the case is that our models of Logic are not sufficiently developed to explain some things yet, but nevertheless the fact is as you said, that this things do actually work...
Logic and Law are not prescriptions for things, but rather they are the very algorithmic working of things themselves !

to pruse philosophy you are better off begging in the street not attending school.
but don't mind the outburst of anger from the others, if you need help with home work i'm willing for a fee

lets say 20 dollars?

is this from class?
This is a philosophical question? * (:;
how ridiculous.
You can arrange those 6 sentences in any order and argue it is standard.
If this is homework: the task is not arrange them but to defend your claim with reasoning.

EDIT** "OH Srry." never read the last sentence correctly.
so you are not re-arranging them?* - you are explaining why (vi) comes last?

EDIT** "Srry again." I don't know how to answer the question.. I got really confused. ahahah.
venn diagrams and all.

(i). All writers who understand human nature are clever.
*** shaespear was clever. ** - If you put this here, the next sentance belongs in a new paragraph. This sentence paragraph is about clever people. The next sentence is about poets.
(ii). No one is a true poet unless he can stir the hearts of men.
(by allowing (I) and (ii) to be together, the next sentence determines of they all fit. You put two apples with an orange. if (iv) comes second.

(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.
***Shakepsear was clever***
(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.
You have begun to list things. SO where is the colon? the semi- colon? the brackets. improper grammar proves it is wrong.


(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.
** shakespear was clever*** new paragraph.
(v). None but a true poet could have written Hamlet.


My initial problem was that I figured, we can convert the paragraph into dialog. which makes it able to be written in ANY order. if we can use multiple paragraphs.
it is a redundant statement, and makes it seem like you are talking to an idiot if (iv) is not last.

"Hate for whores."
have a good day.