Quote:
|
Quite true! I needed to check your meaning because quite frankly, your "Tautologies" are of the Rhetorical type: "In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using different words that effectively say the same thing twice."
|
A rhetorical tautology is a logical tautology when used in LOGIC with reference to the semantics of the proposition.
I provide the exact propositional formula for each tautology so that it is impossible for anyone that actually has knowledge of logic to claim they are not logical tautologies.
Quote:
|
Take for example, "Nothing is nothing" (for which I'd refer you to the link in my signature below): The Law of Identity provides no useful substantiation for any proof defining the concept of "nothing." In fact it can be quite misleading when "A" is ill-defined, in which case, it becomes easy to demonstrate (see the aforementioned thread) that "A = ~A"
|
"nothing" is the logical negation of "thing", do you understand this?... Are you seriously going to argue for some ad hoc semantics on "thing"? lol
The Law of Identity says; "nothing equals nothing"
That is a profound philosophical statement. I am sorry if you can't comprehend it.
Quote:
|
Similarly take: "Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal." "Nothing is uninvolved" is hardly a logical Tautology, however it is a Rhetorical one. At this level it is clear that an anthropomorphic projection of the word "nothing" may imply "uninvolved" and such a statement is often assumed in analyzing say affairs of state (e.g. "a power vacuum"), however it is limited in its explanatory value as it is simply restating a similar and tenuously related concept. Trying to call this a Logical Tautology however is beyond comprehension, because there are so many counterexamples (e.g. "a power vacuum" can result in catastrophic effects on a social system). "Something is self-causal" is not equivalent to saying "not A" and thus adding it also does not create a Tautology.
|
Involvement or implication comes from the Reflexivity of Implication tautology;
A → A “nothing involves nothing”
Are you claiming that nothing is involved with something?
Saying that "nothing is uninvolved" implies that all things are involved or implicated with each other, creating a unity that is self involved! Refer to super string theory if you need help on this.
I think much of this is beyond your comprehension dear.
"a power vacuum" is a metaphoric figure of speech. When dealing with LOGIC you must use LITERAL expressions.
Quote:
|
If you expect to be taken seriously, you are going to need to provide a much more detailed explanation of why you insist that these givens are indeed Tautologies.
|
Hopefully by now you should have some idea of what a logical tautology is. lol Since I am the one teaching you here your silly challenges are pure comedy... keep it up!
Quote:
|
Fortunately a review of your oeuvre on the Internet indicates that this is the sum total of your published "research," so fortunately it appears that we may be lucky enough to have this be all we will hear of your tortured logic....
|
At the moment this is my magnum opus. It is the product of years of research... it is one of the most profound philosophical pieces ever written given that it is extremely geometrically concise as well as completely founded on absolute truth.
Quote:
I should venture to assert that the most pervasive fallacy of philosophic thinking goes back to neglect of context,
Buffy
|
I don't think we will be surprised if I end up handing you your
assertions several times in this thread.
