[gerard casey]

Any given categorical proposition can be presented in 4 different ways. So,
GAR, which is affirmative is the same proposition as
GER (complement), which is negative, which is the same as
R (complement)EG, which is negative, which is the same as
R(complement)AG(complement), which is affirmative.

A given proposition as it presents itself will be affirmative or negative, and its quality is a function of the copula. A and I = affirmative; E and O = negative.

Ordinary language is often ambiguous. ‘Not all men are fat’ is the denial of a universal affirmative: not(All men are fat) and, as you have or will see on the Square of Opposition, the negation of an A-type proposition is an O-type proposition. Where M: men, and F: fat, the proposition is translated as MOF.

‘All men are not fat’is best translated as being equivalent to ‘Not all men are fat’and so translated as MOF. However, sometimes, speakers use this way of saying things to express a universal negative, i.e. to mean ‘No men are fat’ which is translated as MEF.

If you’re speaking to someone or in correspondence with them, then you can ask them to clarify what they intend to claim. If, however, you’re not able to do this, then the Principle of Charity comes into play. This principle says that in cases of ambiguity, you will assume that your interlocutor is make a particular claim rather than a universal claim, universal claims being harded to defend.

I hope this clears matters up. Don’t hesitate to get back to me if you need any help.

Best wishes,

Gerard Casey

[gerard casey]

I have sent your suggestion to Dr Woods.

Best wishes to you for Christmas and the New Year

Gerard Casey

[gerard casey]

Hello Joebear,

Your post came through to me as I’m tagged on this thread. As it concerns Dr Jewel’s articles, he is best placed to respond to your queries, but I thought it only polite to acknowledge your post.

Best wishes,

Gerard Casey

[gerard casey]

Indeed, a course on the history of philosophy would be a great idea, and David Gordon would be an excellent choice to present it.

[gerard casey]

It just occurred to me: in addition to surveying the multifarious accounts of fallacies available in book form and on the web, your son might find a reasonably rigorous treatment of evaluating flesh-and-blood arguments useful. Could I then recommend Alec Fisher’s The Logic of Real Arguments (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press. This book has been out for some time and so it should be possible to pick up a second-hand copy reasonably inexpensively.

[gerard casey]

Thank you so much for helping us to stay accurate. Mistakes happen even in the best regulated enterprises, but it really helps when people such as yourself kindly point out our mistakes.

Best wishes,

Gerard Casey

[gerard casey]

I’ve been in touch with Dr Woods’s technical assistant, whom I am sure will be able to sort things out.

Thanks again for the alert.

GC

[gerard casey]

Thank you for letting me now about this. I don’t handle the posting of the lessons on Liberty so I don’t know what happened there. I’ll get in touch with the site manager about the problem, but perhaps you would be kind enough to send a copy of your post to him as well.

Thanks again.

Gerard Casey

[gerard casey]

You’re most welcome!

[gerard casey]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I’ve been having some difficulty logging into the LibertyClassroom site.
There’s Jeremy Black’s Slavery: A New Global History; Seymour Drescher and Stanley Engerman’s A Historical Guide to World Slavery, and James Walvin’s A Short History of Slavery. You could also look at Robert Davis’s Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters.

[Author]

Posts