[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:55:07 -0330
Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Lawrence Helm wrote:
>
> "A non-sequitur is something which doesn?t logically follow from its
> assumptions so assumptions must be present either explicitly or
> implicitly."
>
> Not quite. A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from its
> premises.
Isn't it the case that both Lawrence and Phil are right, since an assumption, be
it implicit or explit, is still itself a premise in an argument?
eg: Argument: "Abortion is morally wrong because it involves the taking of a
human life." The assumption here, not itself explicitly asserted, is: "All acts
of taking human life are morally wrong." If you believe this (major) premise
is false, then you believe the conclusion is a non sequitor. And if you
consider this major premise to be a false assumption, you still believe the
conclusion is a non sequitor.
(Returning to my study of what it means to be a paying member nation of the UN.
And who the hell to vote for on Monday.) Wish I were back in Scottsdale.
Cheers, Walter
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
