Philosophy 101: Week 1, Day 3

Well, I had all of my homework done by the first evening of class. I had to answer 2 discussion questions on their message board put out by the instructor and I had to write a 400 (minimum) short essay. Other than that, the remainder of the week is just joining in discussions with the other students in my class regarding the discussion questions. Since I am sort of a self-proclaimed professional at message board posting it’s an easy ongoing assignment for me - lol

Because I don’t want to suffer this all alone, I’ll share a little of what we are doing and see what responses, if any, I get on some of the questions I’ve had to answer so far.

Discussion Questions:
1. Find an argument in the newspaper editorial page, on television, or through some other media. Try to formulate it as either a modus ponens or modus tollens argument. Then explain whether (in your thoughtful opinion) the argument is sound. (I’ll explain modus ponens, modus tollens, and sound argument after the second question).

2. Discuss the following famous claim (made by the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates): “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Arguments follow certain patterns to determine their validity. Arguments are comprised of a series of premises (statements) and end with a conclusion. The statements are meant to be truth-claims and the conclusion is meant to necessarily follow from them. What determines if an argument is valid or not is the pattern that it follows. Modus ponen and modus tollens are two examples of valid argument patterns. Examples follow:

Modus Ponens: (A and B stand for any truth-claim)
1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. A is true.
So, 3. B is true.

A shortened version of this looks like:
1. If A, then B.
2. A.
So (or Therefore), 3. B

1. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal
2. Socrates is a man
Therefore, 3. Socrates is mortal.

Pretty easy, eh?

Modus Tollens:
1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is not true,
So, 3. A is not true.

A shortened version:
1. If A, then B.
2. Not-B.
So, 3. Not-A.

1. If Socrates is a dog, then Socrates is an animal.
2. Socrates is not an animal
Therefore, 3. Socrates is not a dog.

Also straight forward and easy. These are pretty basic and there are other forms that can get very complex. Perhaps later I’ll post some of those.

Sound Argument: A sound argument is one in that meets two following bits of criteria. 1. The argument is valid and 2. the premises are true. It is possible to have a valid argument and the argument not be sound. For example:
1. If elves exist, then they are tall and slender with pointy ears
2. Elves exist.
Therefore, 3. They all are tall and slender with pointy ears.

While this argument is valid (statement 3. [conclusion], follows necessarily from statements 1. & 2. [premises]), but it is not sound because the the premises (statements 1. & 2.) are not true.

Finally, my short essay had to be written on the following topic: “It doesn’t make any difference whether you arrive at your views based on reasoning or not.” Then I had to write in either for or against this position.

First Principles of Thought

The First Principles to good thinking are the foundational and fundamental truths that guide and provide borders to human reasoning. In order to think and speak logically, reasonably, and rationally, one must not violate any of these principles. It is upon the foundation of these First Principles that leads us to correctly interpret the world around us and helps guide us to truth. Thankfully, there are only four First Principles to learn and they are very straightforward and simple.

The Principle (Law) of Identity (LID)
Formally Stated: A thing is what it is
Informally Stated: An apple is an apple
Explanation: Existing reality is comprised of individual constituents, and these individuals can be distinguished one from the other. Therefore, if a thing is, then it is not something other than itself. This is helpful because it allows us to say something like an apple is an apple and not a pear. But if we were not able to distinguish between apples and pears, then speaking of either apples or pears becomes meaningless.

The Principle (Law) of Non-Contradiction (LNC)
Formally Stated: X cannot be X and non-X at the same time and in the same state (respect).
Informally Stated: I cannot be a big individual and not a big at the same time, if by big I mean physical stature both times it is used.
Explanation: This is closely related to the LID in that it is a fuller expression of it. For instance, if I were to say that Napoleon was a small man (LID) then the implication is that he was not a large man (LNC). But what if I made the following statements?
a) Napoleon was a small man.
b) Napoleon was a large man.
Both of these statements cannot be true, if, and only if, by “small” and “large” I am speaking of the same thing. I could be true if by small I mean physical stature and by “large” I mean in history. But in no way is it true, if I am speaking of either physical stature or of history in both cases. To do so would violate the LNC. So if we are speaking of physical stature - then either A is true and B is false, or A is false and B is true, or A and B are both false - but in no way can A and B both be true. This is the LNC.

The Principle (Law) of the Excluded Middle (LEM)
Formally Stated: There is no middle ground between Being and Nonbeing.
Informally Stated: Either I exist or I do not exist, but there is no point in the middle in which I partially exist or partially do not exist.
Explanation: Very closes related to LNC in that either something exists or it does not exist. For instance, either the desk I am sitting at exists or it does not exist, there is no middle ground between those two concepts. You might ask, “What if I’m building the desk? Isn’t it in the process of becoming the desk and therefore that is the middle ground?” According to the LEM this is not the case, because while you are in the process of assembling the desk it is not yet a desk, therefore the desk does not exist. After the assembly is completed, then the desk exists and therefore it does not “not exist”. But at not point in that process is there a time when it partially exists or it partially does not exist. The unassembled desk is not becoming the assembled desk; it just becomes. Another, perhaps easier example is this: When I was conceived, then I existed. Before that time, I did not exist. Now, while I may have grown and matured into an adult, that type of “becoming” is relative to my already existing. I still exist. I am not “becoming” a person (Shawn), but I am “becoming” the person (Shawn) a more mature adult. The idea of something becoming is not a movement from nonbeing to being, but rather it is a change to something that already exists.

The Principle (Law) of Causality (LOC)
Formally Stated: Every material cause must have an antecedent
Informally Stated: All material causes must have an effect
Explanation: The idea that all material causes have an effect is really what the sciences are based upon. This is why experiments can be conducted, because what event A happens we expect B to follow. If this wasn’t true we wouldn’t be able to accurately predict a great number of things.