I neglected to mention yesterday that my colleague David Johnson is the author of the sample syllogism we discussed in class, and I owe him this apology. Here is the example:
1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness
2) Studying logic is better than nothing
therefore 3) Studying logic is better than eternal happiness
As many of you were quick to observe, though the argument is formally valid, it is unsound because the linking or middle term "nothing" means different things in the two premises (Aristotle's way of saying this is that the middle term is undistributed).
Some of you also noticed that the concept of "eternal happiness" is somewhat problematic -- not because the phrase lacks a unitary meaning, but rather because we have reason to doubt that it makes practical sense.
This insight is one of the keys to a better argument I think we can make for the truth of the conclusion. Since studying logic is both an intrinsic and an extrinsic good that we can realistically achieve, whereas eternal happiness is probably not, then it is in fact better, at least in that pragmatic respect. Some of you will no doubt wonder at certain points in the semester whether studying logic is, after all, an intrinsic good, but I hope you will not be too quick to draw your conclusions about that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I wonder if I actually borrowed it from Hurley or some other logic text? I don't recall.
So, if the phrase EH is merely a placeholder for a nonsensical notion, then, even were we to fix the meaning of "nothing," the inference is unsound because premise 1 has no truth value?
Well, I don't know about that. The argument is unsound anyway.
The question that remains open is whether the practical problem of EH is fatal (as a Peircean Pragmatist might say: false because no cash value) or merely disturbing. An agnostic might say rather that because we can't know whether EH is or is not a genuine possibility, its value (potential at best) is less than a known good.
So, on the atheistic assumption that no conscious state (happiness included) can be eternal, EH is simply meaningless, like "silent noise" or "funny pun"?
Or, for that matter, "Microsoft Works."
That's a seriously funny, awfully good example.
I do not entirely feel comfortable with your reasoning in support of the conclusion. Because EH is not viable, it is by default worse than than studying logic? I do not think that such a premium ought to be placed upon viability.
I think that a state of being where disease does not currently exist is greater than a state of being where it does. I do not think the former to be viable and yet I still hold it would be greater.
The state of eternal happiness is better than studying logic; it is merely a shame that we will never experience it.
On a lighter note: lacking EH means we can focus on the very next best thing, studying logic.
This syllogism is rediculus to me.
Obviosuly eternal happiness is not a possible thing in an imperfect system. Id like to think of it as I would think of entropy, where energy flows from an area of high concentration to an area of lower concentration. Just like this, it seems that happiness would act accordingly. An example of this would be a guy having the best day of his life, living large and in charge when he gets the call that his mother has just died, removing happiness from the system that was his day.
For EH to exist, every part of the whole would have to contain an extreme, but equal, amount of happiness. Without this equality, perspective shifts and the comparison of a happy thing to a not happy thing disappears. It seems eternal suffering (hell) could also be viewed as EH because their is no greater happiness for it to be compared to.
Im gonna go ahead and call the first part of this statement (nothing is better than eternal happiness) into question because EH cannot exist outside of a perfect system, which does not exist. Therefore, it is saying that 0 is greater than 0 and can be compared to x=4 in the equation (x+2)/(x-4).
@Jacob Wheeler: The validity of the conclusion rests on the ambiguous meaning of the comparator. There are many possible meanings for 'better' and which one is intended here is unclear. Consider the economic notion of a better decision with an uncertain result. Better could mean the result with the greatest value of an optimum outcome, the greatest value of the potential results weighted by the probability of getting that result, or the greatest value in the worst case.
The example of better you use is clearly independant of the probability of it existing. Professor Silliman appears to use it in a way closer to one of the other two meanings I gave.
Good thinking, guys! Looks like I need seriously to re-think the example.
I would disagree also that EH is better than studying logic. EH applies to a singular individual and may disregard the general happiness of the rest of the world, but if that singular individual then instead applied his time to logic and managed to use it for the greater good (and happiness) of others, therefore creating maybe not EH for others, but making more than one person happier throughout their lives, logic may actually be better than EH. But then, I'm also assuming a person who has acquired EH could be so in a world in which not everyone has.
Careful readers will notice the qualification at the end of my new argument, which pre-empts some of the concerns subsequently expressed :
"Since studying logic is both an intrinsic and an extrinsic good that we can realistically achieve, whereas eternal happiness is probably not, then it is in fact better, at least in that pragmatic respect."
I agree with most of the comments which say that logic is not better than EH. This could be partially because I have never taken a logic class before. I will put my opinion anyways. I would rather be eternally happy then study logic. This is because eternal happiness is something that lasts forever and it seems to me like a great thing.
The vague nature of the terms EH and Nothing offer the first obstacle in determining the truth value of the conclusion.
The subjective nature of defining EH offers a logical dilemma in itself. The establishment of a common medium of reference to have a collective fundamental standing of the term is first needed.
Language offers ideas but not necessarily a way to properly conceive of or perceive the actual existence of said ideas. Eternal is imperceivable and happiness is also not perceivable, in the form language suggests, due to the inability for any human to relate to, feel, or understand another person's expression to even a limited extent.
Logic is the study of valid inference and correct reasoning,( as best deduced by our hitherto civilization) thus we are allowed greater ability for a common understanding of the term.
Although we are without the resources and technology to evaluate all data, when we acquire these competencies we will understand exactly why our emotions change, our physiology, thoughts and more, assuredly, without inductive methods. When we're with be this technology emotion (whatever the cause) could theoretically be logically evaluated and a non comprehensible amount compiled to explain each emotion, thought, action, formulaic and logical, a real observation and understanding of reality.
Whether we reach this destination or not the Premise stands firm
Logic could be used to understand happiness.
Logic can be used to dismantle the argument that eternal is even able to be perceived by people.
Logic can be used to enhance all qualities of living, and if is used is likely to have that affect.
Logic is Better than Eternal Happiness because non perceivable concepts such as EH serve the purpose of preserving ideas non corroborative with reality in human language, while logic, if used, is likely to be used in the general logical progression of our species, and whether logic is our conscious desire or not, there is a logical existence for how we came to be. living without logic forfeits the natural fundamentals of universal laws.
Post a Comment