Logic (2016)
Lecture 40: Compound Statements and the Forms of Argumentation

Transcript
================================================================================

And guardian angels, I mean, help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order luminaries and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Praise God. Help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, amen. Just have a little review here so we can know these things. Go ahead. We've talked about statement, right? And we thought out the definition of statement, which is what? What's the genus of statement? Okay. Or a more close genus would be what? Speech, right? Speech, right. Okay. So speech and name are both sounds, right? And they're both sounds that signify, right? And signify by custom rather than by nature, right? And the speech has, what, parts, right? At least two parts that signify by themselves something, right? And the name is kind of the ultimate thing that's signifying. No part of it signifies by itself, right? Okay. So statement is a speech, right? But the definition of statement is what? Yeah. By definition is also a speech, but it's speech signifying what something is, right? Okay. So you can define statement, right? But now what is maybe the first distinction of statements? What's the first distinction? Simple. Yeah. Okay. The simple. And then the compound. Now in the simple statements, you're affirming or denying something one of something one, right? Or in the compound, you're combining in some way, right? Two or sometimes more than two, what? Simple statements, right? And then you'll realize maybe that when you say that a statement is speech signifying the true or the false, true or the false in the simple statement has one meaning and the somewhat different meaning in the what? Compound statement, right? And kind of the example I always give to show how different they are is that you can make a true compound statement, right? Out of two false, simple statements. Sounds crazy, doesn't it, right? But if I'm a number seven, then I'm an odd number. Is that true? I'm not seven. That's number seven. Am I? Like an odd number. I'm not a number. And if I'm a mother, then I am a what? Woman. That's true. Even though it's false that I'm a mother, it's false that I am a what? So the compound statement has a different meaning, right? And maybe the different kinds of compound statement means something different, right? Now, there's at least three main kinds of compound statement, right? And one of them I call the either-or statement, right? Okay. Which they sometimes call the, what? Disjunctive statement, right? Okay. And then you have the conjunction, right? Which is the one that has and in it, right? And then you have the, they call it the hypothetical, but I just call it the if-then, because hypothetical can be misleading, right? Because there's nothing hypothetical. If I'm a number seven, then I am an odd number, right? That's a very big reason. That's what I'm thinking, right? Right? Nothing hypothetical about that when I ask. That's right. So I just call it the if-then statement, right? So you have the if-then statement. What does true mean in the if-then statement? Does it mean the simple statement in the if part is true? Does it mean that the simple statement in the if-then part is true? No. But it means if the first one is, then the second one will be so, right? It's not saying that it is yet true. You can even have it, you know, be true with them being false, right? Okay. Then you have the either or, right? So a human being is either a man or a woman or a boy, right? Yeah. So is it true? So it kind of depends upon the fact that you've exhausted the what? Yeah. Yeah. Thomas is arguing, right, that the father is not before the son, right? He's got to take the distinction that Aristotle gives in the post predicaments, right, of before as being kind of exhaustive. He says the chief of senses, right? And any other senses will be attached to one of these, right? So he's kind of showing it, right? Now the other one is called the conjunctive or conjunction, right? I don't know if you use that or it's not a kind of junky word, but there you have an and in there, right? An and statement, right, huh? Okay. So, now I kind of, you know, have been meaningly putting down the conjunction. It's not very useful for reasoning, right? I am a philosopher and I am a grandfather, right? It's a conjunction statement, right? And you can shorten it, you know, there's still two statements. I am a grandfather and a philosopher, right? Is this one thing being said of one thing? No. There's two things being said of this. You've got really two simple statements that are being combined, right, huh? What does truth mean in this case? Yeah. Yeah. So if I say that I am a, what, a philosopher and a great grandfather, it would be false, right? So far. It's hard to know. Okay. But you don't tend to argue for that kind of a statement, right, huh? Or if you do, you go back to the simple statements that are made up of, right? You're going to be back to that kind of reasoning. But there is an if-then, what? Solidism, right? And we looked at the form of that, right, huh? So, an if-then argument, you have a if-then statement. You put that in the form of that, if A is so, then what? B is so, right? Where A and B are standing for the simple statements that is composed of, right? And then you look either at A or you look at B, right? If you look at A, you might find out that A is or is not so, right? Now, does something follow if A is so? It's kind of the obvious form, right, huh? Because you've admitted in the first statement, if A is so, then B will be so. And now you're saying that A is in fact so, right? Well, they're going to have to admit that what? B is so, right, huh? And now, if you find out that A is not so, does that mean that B is not so? So, you have to go to the matter, right, then? If the matter is something convertible in the area, that way, right? If this number is 2, then this number is half a 4. This number is not 2, therefore it's not half a 4, right? That's because of the convertible, it's because of the matter, right? Not because of the form, right? So, if this number is 2, this number is less than, what, 10, right? That's true, right? If this number is not 2, therefore it's not less than 10. That's true. That's true. That's true. So as far as the form is concerned, it doesn't follow necessarily. If A is not so, then B is not so. So some days people will think it's going to follow, right? Now, when you look at the B, you might find out that B is so, right? A lot of times when we find out that B is so, we think that A is so, right? They're having a twist, and they go out to the what? Motel, right? I went out to the motel. It doesn't follow, does it? So, if I am a man, I am a what? Animal, right? Does it follow that I am a man? You could argue the same way. If I am a dog, then I am an animal. I am an animal, but you can argue from B is not so, right? If B is not so, what about A? You can show that by the first form, which is Robert's form, right? Because if A were so, by the first form, B would have been so. But since B is not so, A cannot be so, therefore A must not be so, right? So I was emphasizing this because it is very important for reasoning, right? And the either or is important, right? Now sometimes, when you argue firmly from the either or statement, what do you do? Well, you know, it is one of those possibilities, right? You eliminate all but, what? One, right? Depending on how many possibilities you have. But, if you want to argue negatively, like Thomas wanted to argue that the father is not before the son, you have got to, what? Eliminate all possibilities, right? Okay. Now I don't think the conjunctions use, you know, really to syllogize, right? Because you break it down and then you bring it back to this, right? But the conjunction is, you know, an important kind of statement, nevertheless, right? I was thinking of the apocalypse, right? I am the Alpha and the Omega, he says, the first and the last. I kind of studied the apocalypse a little bit. I think the first time he says it, I am the Alpha and the Omega, that's what he says. The second time he says, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. And finally he says all three of them, right? But just one of those would be, what? A, what? I'm telling you, you should have stated, right? Just take the last part there. I am the beginning and the end, right? Is that one statement or a simple statement? It's a compound statement, right? You say two things of I, which I'm going to put in the third person, would be God, right? God is the beginning and God is the end, right? Then you short it and say God is the beginning and the end, right? But it's nice that he has the Alpha and the Omega, right? Because that sits on the tabernacle better than it. So, is there a reason for combining those two in the scripture, right? I'm sure there is. Yeah, yeah. Would there be any reason to combine them and say I am a philosopher and a grandfather? So, at the hospital, you know, sometimes, you know, when babies are being born, you know, they want to, they're previously born in the hands of the grandfather, right? But they want to make sure that I am the grandfather, right? For the end of being over to me, or the little one, you know, that they care of, and the other one is being born, right? Okay? But philosopher might be, you know, for the teaching school or something, right? Okay? So, I mean, that's why they go together, right? But it says in Apocalypse, I am the beginning and the end, or God is the beginning and the end, right? Is there a reason to put those together in one compound statement? Yeah. Yeah. But you're talking about God as being a cause, right? And the beginning is one kind of a cause, and the end is another kind of a cause, right? So, you're putting together everybody in God as a cause, in a sense, then. God is not the beginning of himself. Nothing is the beginning of itself, right? He's not the end of himself. Nothing is the end of itself, right? But he said to be the beginning and the cause, but the beginning of the cause of what? Yeah. You could say, of all things other than himself, he is the beginning and the end, right? And that's to be the beginning and the end by Tone Messier, right? So, he's saying it by Tone Messier, right? Now, my teacher, Thomas Aquinas, in my favorite book, the Summa Contra Gentiles, right? The first three books, right? And then the fourth book, again, in a different way, we'll see. They divide theology into three parts, right? The first book, he talks about God in himself or by himself, right? The second book, he talks about God as the beginning, right? What he's the beginning of, right? And then, in the third book, he talks about God being the end and his providence of directing things towards the end. That's interesting. Aristotle, this is the third kind of cause. He sometimes calls it the mover and sometimes he calls it the what? Maker. Maker, yeah. But when you say God is the beginning, he's both the maker and the what? Mover, right? So, in that third part, when he talks about God being the end, though, he's talking about his moving things, directing them towards himself, right? So, I can see that, you know, being a hero of Thomas there, I've got to say, that's a pretty good injunction, right? I am the beginning and the end, right? He explains the second and the third book, right? And in contrast to the first book, which is about God in himself or by himself. The fourth book has three parts, right? Into the same three parts, but what's the difference, huh? He's combining another division, right? Because in the first three books, he's talking about what natural reason you can know about God as well as what? Faith, right? In the fourth book, he's talking about what we can know about God in himself or at the beginning or the end of things, as the picker or the mover, by faith alone, right? I think the reason why Thomas divided this way was he was commanded, right? Or told to or asked by the Dominican order, right? To write something for the Dominicans who were talking to the Mohammedans down in Spain, right? And so he wanted to separate the things that could be known by reason about God, as well as by faith, right? From the things that could only be known by faith, right? Because you can't proceed the same way with regard to these, right? And you don't want to have the two things mixed up, right? So you didn't want the Dominicans to be trying to prove by natural reason that there are three persons in God, right? And he wants to be able to defend, you know? There being two persons in God. And Mohammed is in charge of where Polychus, right? We think there are three gods, right? And Socrates is a man, and Plato's a man, and Aristotle's a man. We've got three men, right? So the Father is a god, and the Son is a god, and the Holy Spirit is a god. He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? He's got two gods, right? But again, he follows the same division, right? So, you say that the Summa Contra Gentilis is divided into the four books by crisscrossing, right? These two divisions, right? God is himself, God is the beginning, God is the end, right? And then, insofar as this can be known by reason as Elohim, as well as by faith, and then by faith, what? Elohim, and then you have the first three books and the three parts of the fourth book, right? The Muslim concept of Allah is that he's arbitrary, at least in whatever he does. He can contradict himself no problem. Is there any argument to be made that in that case he can make himself more than one? Because he's not held to anything. I mean, the Quran parts, the letter parts, many of them contradict the earlier parts. Yeah, yeah. I mean, was that ever, you know, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no God is the beginning and the end, right? Combining two simple statements, right? To make one compound conjunctive statement, right? Now my other favorite one is at the beginning of the greatest book, which is supposed to be what? Gospel of John, right? And what does he say? In the beginning was the Word, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was toward God. I can kind of see the importance of that, right? Just like if he had not added, you know, I am the beginning and the end, right? You might say, well, God is a cause in the sense of... Again, I used to ask the kids after we distinguish the four parts of causes, matter, form, over end. And how many senses of cause is God a cause, right? Well, you might say, well, if God is the beginning, then he's a cause in that sense, right? Oh, yeah, but he's also a cause in this sense of the end, right? He's talking about being a good application exemplar, right? And half causes, right? So it's good that he puts those two together, right? But now if you read this, you say, okay, let's get to reading... Oh, it's probably coming out of opposites, right? One opposite is not the other opposite, right? The beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God. If it was toward God, then it can't be God, right? Because that's one of the kinds of opposites, right? Because that's one of the kinds of opposites, right? So it's important to make the compound statement that it has three instead of two. And so he added, and the Word was God. Wow, that's great. And I said, well, maybe I didn't understand in what way the Word is toward God, right? That God here is, what, standing for... I've got to explain that a little bit if I say, you know, that I, Wayne Brickless, and the son of Reno Victor Brickless from Parkers Prairie, Minnesota. He was young, he had a tail, a flash, and he came back to that county, and he was quite a smart guy. But he said, if I'm the son of Reno Victor Brickless from Parkers Prairie, Minnesota, I can't be Reno Victor Brickless from Parkers Prairie, can I? The son is not the one who is the son, right? Now, supposedly I said it differently. I, in case you didn't know it, I'm the son of a man. That's true or false. I can't be a man, right? Because you can't be what you're a son of, right? Fair enough. So everybody seems there's something wrong with my argument here, right? Because a man there, what? It's not that that's one of the meanings of a man, Reno Victor Brickless in Parkers Prairie, Minnesota. If you look up the dictionary, you'll find one of the meanings of the word, Reno Victor Brickless. And he got a great tradition. But since my father was a man, right? A man can stand in some context, right? For what? My father, right? So the distinction between standing for and what? Meaning, right? Can be seen in a non-controversial example of this, right? So I said, when I said that the word was toward God, right? Did that mean that the one that he was toward, right? Strictly speaking, was, as the next sentence says, right? The word was God, yeah. So I kind of got more respect when I think about those things. I said, do I need it? Don't be hasty. Yeah. I don't think you reason so much the conjunction, unless you break it down for the simple statement that it's made up of, right? But it's kind of important, you know, the conjunction. Maybe there's some other compound statement that I've escaped right now, is that to me is often enough. It starts to feed. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is that more than one statement? When R. Stahl defines the actually is the more general genus, which is speech, right? So it's speech in which some statements, I don't say how many, but it's usually two, right? Like in the FDN syllogism, right? It's two. And in the one we were talking about last time, right? There are two simple statements, huh? Either or there might be more, right? Speech in which some statements laid down. I'm interested to use that term laid down, right? Other things are laid down like the law. I'm going to lay down the law, you guys. You expect something to lay down the law, you expect you to, what? It's a behavior that's going to follow the law. The fact that the law isn't laid down. You expect consequences. Yeah. So, laid down speech in which some statements laid down, another, right? And it's another, it's other, right? Another statement follows necessarily speech in which some statements laid down, another statement follows necessarily. Then Aristotle adds, because of those laid down. Okay? Why the hell has he had that? Revit is a soul, what? He's just a pencil. Yeah. Because of those laid down. Well, I always go to Shakespeare's words, he says, this is above all. His own self be true. And it must follow the night of the day. Thou canst not then be false. He seems to be saying that if you're true to yourself, right? Then it follows necessarily that you'll be true to what? Other people. Others, yeah. Okay? That's interesting, right? When you get married, you know, you make an act of choice, right? I'm choosing you for my wife or my husband, whatever. And, um, I get it true to your wife. Well, if you're true to your choice, then you will be what? But if you're false to yourself, to your choice, right? Good if you're going to be false to your wife, right? So Shakespeare heard it from, right? This is above all to thy own self be true. And it must follow as the night of the day, though canst not then be false to any man. But does night follow upon day necessarily? Do you have an emotional sentence? Yeah. Yeah. But is it following necessarily because it was day? Or is it something else? Yeah. You know? It might be that if the sun, you know, goes around the earth necessarily, right? Or if the earth necessarily turns out as acts like some people maintain, you know how. Then night will follow day necessarily, right? And day will follow night necessarily, right? But will they follow night necessarily because of what night is? Because of the earth turning on its axis or the sun going around the earth, right? But he's adding this, right? Because of those laid down. He had added, right? Yeah. Yeah. Toes in, toes out, they'd say, you know? Okay. So it was not superfluous, right? He shouldn't have too much in the definition or too little. I think too much of the civil wise men he said, right? This is not too much. He said, you know what he's doing, this Aristotle. It's the kind of saying Aristotle is somebody. Now, sometimes we take a more approximate genus that we say argument, right? We could say argument. Some talents say it's bad to do, you know? But I don't want to divide argument, right? Sometimes Aristotle divides argument into just two. And sometimes he divides it into what? Four. Four. Sometimes he divides it into syllogism and what? Induction, right? Just like you might divide many beings into what? Men and women, right? Just two, right? Now suppose someone comes along and says, what about boys and girls? Well, a boy is a man and a girl is a woman. But there's some distinction between a boy and a man, isn't there? Some distinction between a girl and a woman, right? So maybe it's not, you know, maybe you could divide human beings not just into two men and women, but into men and women and what? Of course, hoisting girls. Makes some sense, right? It's complicated here, but it makes some sense, huh? So Aristotle is in the book called The Rhetoric, huh? And in tradition it says, you know, that Plato said, Aristotle, one of your assignments is to write us a book on the rhetoric, on the art of persuasion, right? So rhetoric is the art of persuasion, huh? I persuade the crowd and I persuade the jury, right? When he talks to the rhetoric, huh, about the art of persuasion, huh? He distinguishes the means of persuasion, right? Now, are there two or three means of persuasion? Well, three is the first number about which you say all. So there's got to be three means of persuasion, obviously, right? And Aristotle distinguishes the three means of persuasion. One is the image you project of yourself, right? I'm not talking about, right? That guy knows what he's talking about. You know, when you're talking to the crowd, you have projected that you're a prudent man, right? And I'm a good-hearted man, you know, man's got their good in mind, all these things. Let's go. Let's go. Narastal actually speaks of this as being the strongest means of persuasion, which you project to yourself. So the politician is worrying most of all about the human being, which may not have anything to do with the man. And then the second means of persuasion, he says, is the way he moves the emotions of the human being. You have a whole treatise in there on the emotion, right? How to arouse anger, how to calm down anger, you know. Narastal says, no, he says, talking about the use of emotion in the courtroom, right? And he says, in a world record agency, they would allow these emotional appeals, right? Your opposite is going to use them, right? You've got to be able to use them, right? Okay. I was reading Richard Nixon's memoirs, right? It's a big book, it's 1100 pages, right? I took it out on Tuesday, right? I've seen it in the library, and I said, you know, take this out on Tuesday. Because actually, he was what? He was vice president for eight years, and then he was president for about six years, right? He had been a senator before that, and a representative, right? True. But I called him as two. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I'll say yes, yeah. He's enemies, right, huh? Yeah. And so on. Well, anyway, when he was vice president, huh? I mean, Ken was the vice president, with Eisenhower, right, huh? And the ticket, huh? And somebody got the story started about he's got some kind of a slush fund, you know, that keeps him in the high life, you know? And, of course, the facts come out, it's not like that at all, right? I guess what happened was, when you're in Washington, right, you have to go back to your district, right, huh? And they'll pay your going back there once, you know? But that's it, right? And if you want to send out mail, you've got to send out from Washington, and it costs a lot of money. And you've got 3,000 people you've got to send a thank you note to, you know, and so on. So he didn't have any money to speak of, right? And so they took up a little collection, right? And it was all, what? He didn't even disperse the money, right? And everything was accounted for, right? So there's nothing. And it turned out that Adlai Stevenson had a slush fund that was really crooked, you know? It was used for personal madness and so on, right? So it was all false, right, then? And he almost got kicked off the ticket, right? So finally, he had a chance to speak to the nation, right? And that can partly put emotional appeal, right? And in terms of gifts, right, I guess somebody had given them this dog, right? And he said, we're still going to keep that dog no matter what he says. You know? He killed the dog, you know? I said, hey, he was fully justified, right? You know? Because they were using the emotion against him, right? You know, he's got this huge guy there, giving money, you know, he's going on vacation. You know, and then that was true, you know? And of course, Stevenson wouldn't say, he's going to hold this, you know? The press was in like now, you know, they wouldn't go after Stevenson, right? And so that's the second means of persuasion, right? And so if I can get the jury, you know, feeding the anger about this guy, I'd be more apt to find him guilty or punish him even more than he should be punished, right? I get to think, sorry about it. Sorry about it. You know? I don't want to take him too seriously, you know? And so. Here's an example of the first one, too. If you heard about, there was a debate that was televised between him and John Kennedy when he was running against Kennedy for the presidency. And the Kennedy operators knew that Nixon sweat easily. Yeah. And so they made sure that he was turned up really high. Yeah. Where the debate was. Yeah. And so people who watched the debate on TV, they saw Nixon sweating. And so generally, they thought that he lost the debate. Yeah. But people who heard it over the radio thought that Nixon won. Wow, interesting. Wow. Remember my cousin on the radio, and it seemed like Nixon was picking the best targets, you know, and so on. And Nixon actually, under the weather there, he was recovering from. So he didn't have makeup to be the Kennedy head. It was kind of interesting, after the failure of the day of the pigs, you know? Kennedy, you know, called Nixon and said, what did I do? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, really?