[lit-ideas] Re: Illogical but true...
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:14:37 -0330
A sentence, specifically a statement or proposition, cannot be both illogical
and true (or false). As far as I know, nobody has shown this to be false, not
even Plato or Andreas. Illogical utterances cannot be truth value candidates
since they possess no identifiable truth conditions. We don't know what in the
world would count as a verification or a falsification of the statement.
So, the truth is out: Ursula prioritizes family, food and wine over
philosophical analysis. Not even a god can save her now.
Walter O.
Snowed under yet again on the Rock of the Avalon
Quoting Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> I haven't been following the illogical thread (too much family -- too
> much food) but the small statement here suggests Plato's definition of
> knowledge. If the sentence is illogical, then it's truth is merely
> accidental (and, therefore, not good enough for knowledge).
> Ursula, back to the family and the food (and the odd glass of red
> wine...)
>
> My apologies to Andreas if this is an irrelevant response to his showing
> of possibility -- which I no longer have...
>
>
> Andreas Ramos wrote:
> > A few days ago, we discussed illogical statements. The logicians hold
> > that it's impossible for a sentence to be both illogical and true. But
> > I showed that this was possible. Why couldn't an expert in logic prove
> > this? Here's an article from today's NYT about this.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
