The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 5) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Aug 26, 07 - 3:32 AM |
Equivocation; NOT "enthymeme"
Subject: Re: Enthymeme Name: Ivo Date Posted: Aug 25, 07 - 6:55 PM Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws Message: Kevin said: Well fill in one of my "backbones" in an actual square of logical opposition. Ivo drove against a car beCAUSE he had found out the truth (meaning CAUSE) of his missing hand. VS. Ivo did NOT drive against a car BECAUSE a drunk driver drove against him and was jailed for the offence. Which is it? Ivo replies: 1. I don't your get question. Can questions of fact be determined/solved by the square? REBUTTAL: You do GET my question. You have given a typically "Kantian" response to the effect that "I don't know what you mean."; or "Your question is meaningless." You follow with another EQIVOCATING response. You ask another question, rather than answering a question of which you know both the MEANING and the CORRECT ANSWER. But I'll answer, your question thereby FOLLOWING THE RULES OF DISCUSSION, unlike you, Ivo. IVO (asks): Can questions of fact be determined/solved by the square? ANSWER: No. All that the "square" demonstrates is OPPOSED pairs of statements and their logical opposition to each other as either (1) CONTRARY or (2) CONTRADICTORY or (3) SUBCONTRARY. The "square" also teaches that contradictory propositions are opposed as TRUE vs FALSE. Contraries are opposed as either (1) Both FALSE or (2) If one is TRUE then its contrary is FALSE. The "square" also teaches that for SUBCONTRARIES there are 2 possibilities which are (1) Both may be TRUE; or (2) If one subcontrary is FALSE, the "opposite" is necessarily TRUE. ADLER: "I CANNOT EXAGGERATE the IMPORTANCE of "Aristotle's" RULES concerning STATEMENTS that are incompatible with one another in ONE of those 3 ways --- through being CONTRADICTORY of one another, through being CONTRARY to one another, or SUBCONTRARY to one another. The IMPORTANCE is that observing these RULES not only helps us to avoid making INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, but also helps us TO DETECT inconsistencies in the STATEMENTS made by others and to CHALLENGE what they say." [MAN THE KNOWER; Aristotle For Everybody; Ch. 17; 13th pgph; page 131 BANTAM BOOKS EDITION; 1980-1983.] IVO (continues to EQUIVOCATE): 2. If so (ie. If "squares" can determine facts), that would make the task of courts very easy. COULD EQIVOCATING HYPOTHETICAL ENTHYMEME: Missing minor Premise:- The task of courts is NOT very easy. Missing Conclusion:- Hence "squares" CANNOT determine facts. But nobody ever said that "squares" determine facts. Thus the EQUIVOCATION. All that "squares" do is DEMONSTRATE how true vs. false statements OPPOSE each other. 3. And if so, how do you explain news items I will quote in section 6? ANSWER: Since your implied "antecedent" (Squares determine facts! = FALSE) is actually NOT SO, your half-hypothesis and half-question is simply another way of OBFUSCATING and EQUIVOCATING when CAUGHT in a CONTRADICTION. As to the question about crimes NOT being solved, that has nothing to do with "COURTS". Courts only acquit or convict actually charged criminals. If cases of CRIME go unsolved, then the investigators of CRIMES have not received the STATEMENTS required or the MATERIAL EVIDENCE required to either charge an individual with a crime or, even tougher, to convict a charged person with a crime. Hence more "equivocation" and smoke screen when CAUGHT in your contradiction about your own resolved "law case". 4. Is the square the DNA of reality? ANSWER: No! DNA is physical evidence. STATEMENTS are verbal evidence. The "square" is a mental "acid test" for those who contradict themselves and make statements either in conformity-with reality, or contradictory to reality, or CONTRARY to very limited questions about very small parts of "reality", such as:- Q. Did Ivo drive against a car? (Yes or No) Q. Did the other driver drive against Ivo (Yes or No). IVO (still equivocating): But if so, you still need the facts on you “to/apply the DNA/square-test”. Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. You need a res on which can apply the square/DNA. REBUTTAL: I need nothing! You have ASSERTED the CONTRADICTORY "facts". Ivo drove against a car. (Stated by Ivo Cerkel) VS. A drunk drove against Ivo and went to jail (Stated by Ivo Cerkel) Which is true? That the drunk went to jail is probably TRUE. The question remains:- Did Ivo drive against the drunk or NOT-drive against the drunk? Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus., as you say. Yours is the only INTELLECT on this list which KNOWS what the "adequatio" is. But your two opposed statements do NOT "equate", Ivo. They CONTRADICT each other according to IVO, Aristotle and Aquinas. contd. Kevin |
|
Kevin
Aug 26th, 2007 - 3:57 AM |
Re: Equivocation; NOT "enthymeme"
CORRECTION: IVO (continues to EQUIVOCATE): 2. If so (ie. If "squares" can determine facts), that would make the task of courts very easy. ***COULD*** EQIVOCATING HYPOTHETICAL ENTHYMEME: Missing minor Premise:- The task of courts is NOT very easy. Missing Conclusion:- Hence "squares" CANNOT determine facts. The above should read GOOD EQUIVOCATING. To continue examining Ivo's EQUIVOCATIONS, we have: IVO: What is that thing (res)? [Which constitutes the "adequatio" between THING/res or THINGS/rei, from which (ie. res/rei) the English terms REAL and REALISM are derivative expressions KB] ANSWER: The "rei/things" are Ivo, a drunk and two crashed cars when Ivo was 20 years old. The question is, Which of the two human "rei" (real things) was the CAUSE of an alleged "accident". Was the "reified" CAUSE Ivo or a drunk? IVO (asks): Is that going to be provided by the square/DNA itself? ANSWER: No! Anyone can "plant DNA". Anyone can also LIE about things they KNOW. But they had better NOT make contradictory statments if they want to avoid having their LIES and/or CRIMES detected. 5. “Da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius” Give me the facts. I’ll give the law. Give me the facts and I’ll be able to apply the square. REBUTTAL: You HAVE ALREADY given this list the alleged FACTS, Ivo and claim to know the PNC or LAW OF THOUGHT. You have both THE LAW and THE FACTS in your "soul", Mr. EQUIVOCATOR, or so you SAY. You can apply the "square", without even KNOWING it, because you KNOW that you "DROVE AGAINST A CAR" and also stated that FACT on this very list. Q.E.D. COMMENTARY: You apparently "thought" it would make people sympathetic to your plight. Now, since you haven't received that sympathetic response, you want to "get away" from both the TRUTH ("adequatio intellectus" and the FACT that you, in your car (res) drove against a different car (opposite physical res). 6. The two news items 6.1 FOUR OUT OF FIVE CRIMES UNSOLVED COMMENT: More Irrelevance! As far as "adequatio" is concerned, your first crime was revealed when you said you "drove against a car". Your second crime was not revealed until you revealed that another person went to jail because of your first crime! Ivo, the TRUTH and JUSTICE "realist philosopher" is actually a different kind of "monster". Do you never become TIRED of lying Ivo? Isn't it EXHAUSTING to maintain the facade of innocent "victim", when you are actually a spoiled little brat, who is over 40 years old??? ARISTOTLE: "It is well said then, that by doing just acts that the just man is produced and by doing temperate acts that the temperate man (is produced); without doing these (just and temperate acts KB) no one would have even a chance of becoming good. But most people do NOT do these (just and temperate acts KB), but take refuge in theory and think they are becoming philosophers and will become GOOD in this way, behaving somewhat like PATIENTS who listen carefully to their DOCTORS, but DO NONE of the things they are ORDERED to DO. As the latter (patients who DO NONE of what their doctors tell them to DO. KB) will NOT BE MADE WELL in body by such a course of treatment (hearing but NOT doing) the former ("philosophy" HEARERS) will NOT be made well in soul by such a course of philosophy." ---Nichomachean Ethics BK II, Ch. 4. 1105b lines 9-18--- Start DOING "squares" Ivo and listen again to Dr. Adler. You can't fool a trained Aristotelian REALIST with equivocations, contradictions and obfuscations about unsolved crimes. You SOLVED yours for me and now you can RESOLVE them for yourself. KEVIN |
|
Ivo
Aug 26th, 2007 - 8:39 AM |
Re: Equivocation; NOT "enthymeme"
Please note that, as a result of the accident, I was/spent three days in coma and that I (thus) do NOT remember ANYTHING from the accident. That's why I am asking for the facts. |
|
Ivo
Aug 26th, 2007 - 8:53 AM |
Re: Equivocation; NOT "enthymeme"
In the Jun 10, 07 - 10:34 PM opening post of Re: Ivo's Pain (with continuing addendae) http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/704864 you quoted me as writing : As my stump was already forced to wear enough : prostheses (resulting in six weeks of coma in : 1970, three more days of COMA in 1982 after : learning of thalidomide), I was not very happy : with this. |
|
Ivo
Aug 26th, 2007 - 11:07 AM |
Re: Equivocation; NOT "enthymeme"
I have been told I had been involved in an accident. The only thing I remember is that I awoke from coma and that my pelvis was broken. How did the pelvis get broken? I was told this was the result of a car crash. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com