Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'works', 'Problems in Personal Identity' and 'Wittgenstein'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


3 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / D. Assumptions for Logic / 3. Contradiction
Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor lack of contradiction a sign of truth [Pascal]
     Full Idea: Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth.
     From: Blaise Pascal (works [1660]), quoted by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.6
     A reaction: [Quoted in Auden and Kronenberger's Book of Aphorisms] Presumably we would now say that contradiction is a purely formal, syntactic notion, and not a semantic one. If you hit a contradiction, something has certainly gone wrong.
5. Theory of Logic / D. Assumptions for Logic / 4. Identity in Logic
In logic identity involves reflexivity (x=x), symmetry (if x=y, then y=x) and transitivity (if x=y and y=z, then x=z) [Baillie]
     Full Idea: In logic identity is an equivalence relation, which involves reflexivity (x=x), symmetry (if x=y, then y=x), and transitivity (if x=y and y=z, then x=z).
     From: James Baillie (Problems in Personal Identity [1993], Intr p.4)
15. Nature of Minds / A. Nature of Mind / 4. Other Minds / d. Other minds by analogy
The argument from analogy is not a strong inference, since the other being might be an actor or a robot [Grayling]
     Full Idea: The argument from analogy is a weak one, because it does not logically guarantee the inference I draw to the other's inner states, for he might be dissimulating or acting, or may even be a cleverly contrived robot which feels nothing.
     From: A.C. Grayling (Wittgenstein [1988], Ch.3)
     A reaction: This gives the impression that for an argument to be strong it must logically guarantee its inference. It strikes me that analogy is a good reason for believing in other minds, but that is because I am looking for the best explanation, not logical proof.