What's invalid about this argument?

[Sauwelios]

@Debaitor

@Sauwelios

1. All Interpreting is Being.
2. All Being is X.
3. All Interpreting is X. [from 1 and 2]
4. All Interpreting all Being as X is X. [from 3]
5. All Being is Interpreting. [from 4]

I found yet another flaw in your reasoning.

There is no logical substratum for: X as X is X. It doesn’t make any sense. Analogy is not exposition.

(Another friendly lesson in LOL-LOL-LOGIC from your Anti-Nietzschean Overlord. :banana-dance: )

In the sentence “All Interpreting all Being as X is X”, the subject is “all Interpreting all Being as X”, and the predicate “is X”.

Though I’m probably not using correct terminology, you make the mistake (perhaps on purpose) of parsing incorrectly. This is the right way to parse my statement:

All Interpreting all Being as X | is X.

All Interpreting all Being | as X || is X.

All Interpreting | all Being || as X ||| is X.

etc.

What you do is this:

All Interpreting all Being | as X is X.

[Debaitor]

Do you know what “as” means??? Why am I picking up the feeling English isn’t your first language?

You tell me how you define “as”. Tell me what “X as X” or “X as Y” means to you.

[Sauwelios]

@Debaitor

Do you know what “as” means??? Why am I picking up the feeling English isn’t your first language?

You tell me how you define “as”.

“As” is the same word as als in Dutch (my native language) and German, so I know what it means.

Tell me what “X as X” or “X as Y” means to you.

It does not matter, as you cannot parse my statement to isolate “Being as X”. It’s ironic how you’re making a fool of yourself, in my eyes at least.

Suppose I interpret your posts as the writings of a fool. Then we can speak of “my Interpreting your posts as the writings of a fool”. Now suppose this Interpreting of mine is an activity, i.e., an Acting. Then we can say, “My Interpreting your posts as the writings of a fool is Acting.” But we cannot say, “Your posts as the writings of a fool is Acting.”

[Debaitor]

@Sauwelios

“As” is the same word as als in Dutch (my native language) and German, so I know what it means.

No, you don’t. “As” is not a Germanic root term. It is Anglian.

@Sauwelios

It does not matter, as you cannot parse my statement to isolate “Being as X”. It’s ironic how [size=200]you’re making a fool of yourself,[/size] in my eyes at least.

I’m not the one who confused basic linguistic knowledge, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

@Sauwelios

[size=200]Suppose I interpret your posts as the writings of a fool.[/size]

@Sauwelios

Then we can speak of “my Interpreting your posts as the writings of a fool”. Now suppose this Interpreting of mine is an activity, i.e., an Acting. Then we can say, “My Interpreting your posts as the writings of a fool is Acting.” But we cannot say, “Your posts as the writings of a fool is Acting.”

Interpreting is not an action.

You clearly do not understand Anglian dialectic and logic. Your “Dutch-German” does not translate logically.

Then again, I saw that from the beginning. I just didn’t want to tell you until you Ad Hommed me, so that I could present this fact over your over inflated ego with immunity.

Let’s restart; I forgive you for your Ad Homs. Moderators, please do not punish this Dutchman.

Nietz…er, I mean, Sauwelious, won’t you define “as” for me??? I’d appreciate that, otherwise it seems, neither you nor I have anymore reason to respond to this thread and it’s, um, errr, Syllogisms???

=D>

[Humpty]

Debaitor doesn’t really understand what he’s talking about…

anyway, OP is very, very vague. is X a category? are being and interpreting categories? if all these things are categories, as your wording seems to imply, then the problem is quite simple: view it as a venn diagram of sorts.

if they’re not categories, but each of those terms instead represents a specific thing, then indeed if A is B then B is necessarily A. that’s not the case with categories, it is the case with discrete things.

for example, all Arms are Limbs, but not all Limbs are Arms. → this is the category version
your left arm is your upper left limb (we can just assume directions, don’t need to get too specific with that, that would be petty), and your upper left limb is also your left arm. → this is the specific version.

So, if they are categories, step 3 is incorrect and does not follow from 1 and 2. If they are specific things, then you can skip steps 2-4, step 1 implies step 5 by itself. In all cases, step 4 is just gibberish.

[Debaitor]

@Humpty

Debaitor doesn’t really understand what he’s talking about…

Sauwelious doesn’t when he claims “as” is German-Dutch. That is completely false, and he knows it. Lying is bad, mmkay.

[Debaitor]

You go ahead and explain this, Humpty:

Cheese (X) as cheddar (X) is category X. If you can link this statement to a logical syllogism then you win a prize.

Now, lecture me on logic and accuse “I don’t know what I’m talking about”.

[jonquil]

@Sauwelios

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with its soundness, i.e., with the truth values of its statements.

1. All birds are bees.
2. All bees are seas.
3. All birds are seas.

This is a perfectly valid argument, though all its statements are false.

If that’s the case, then why bother with it? Anybody can make a syllogism, valid or invalid.

[Humpty]

jonquil, your question is irrelevant. what he said was perfectly accurate. a valid argument does not imply that the conclusion is necessarily true. all an argument needs to qualify as valid is that IF YOU ASSUME that the premises are true, then it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true. The premises don’t have to be true for an argument to be valid. If they are not true, the argument is valid but the conclusion may be false.

anyway, debaitor, i pointed out in my last post that that statement doesn’t make sense and is gibberish. look for the word “gibberish” in my last post, you will see what I said about that statement.

[Sauwelios]

@Debaitor

@Sauwelios

“As” is the same word as als in Dutch (my native language) and German, so I know what it means.

No, you don’t. “As” is not a Germanic root term. It is Anglian. #-o

You don’t care much about truth, do you.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=as

@Sauwelios

It does not matter, as you cannot parse my statement to isolate “Being as X”. It’s ironic how [size=200]you’re making a fool of yourself,[/size] in my eyes at least.

I’m not the one who confused basic linguistic knowledge, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. :lol:

Yes, that’s the irony. You think I confused it, because your basis of linguistic knowledge is—confused…

@Sauwelios

[size=200]Suppose I interpret your posts as the writings of a fool.[/size]

@Sauwelios

Then we can speak of “my Interpreting your posts as the writings of a fool”. Now suppose this Interpreting of mine is an activity, i.e., an Acting. Then we can say, “My Interpreting your posts as the writings of a fool is Acting.” But we cannot say, “Your posts as the writings of a fool is Acting.”

Interpreting is not an action.

Of course it is. Have you never seen a professional interpreter at work?

Also, besides the point. You’re evading the issue.

You clearly do not understand Anglian dialectic and logic.

You don’t even know what “Anglian” means, do you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anglian

Your “Dutch-German” does not translate logically.

That may be, but I also speak English. I even think in English.

Then again, I saw that from the beginning. I just didn’t want to tell you until you Ad Hommed me, so that I could present this fact over your over inflated ego with immunity.

Weren’t you the one who first ad-hommed me, which was the occasion for your being given a 24-hour ban? At best you’re a pot calling the kettle black here. By the way, it’s “overinflated”.

Let’s restart; I forgive you for your Ad Homs.

Your magnanimity knows no bounds.

Moderators, please do not punish this Dutchman.

Nietz…er, I mean, Sauwelious, won’t you define “as” for me??? I’d appreciate that, otherwise it seems, neither you nor I have anymore reason to respond to this thread and it’s, um, errr, Syllogisms???

:lol: :lol: :lol: =D>

, more like. Anyway, I’ll bite. I’ll define it, in this context at least, as “thus:”.

“I interpret your posts as the writings of a fool” = “I interpret your posts thus: the writings of a fool”.

Compare “I think that you’re a fool.” This literally means: “I think that: you are a fool.”

[Sauwelios]

@Humpty

Debaitor doesn’t really understand what he’s talking about…

anyway, OP is very, very vague. is X a category? are being and interpreting categories? if all these things are categories, as your wording seems to imply, then the problem is quite simple: view it as a venn diagram of sorts.

if they’re not categories, but each of those terms instead represents a specific thing, then indeed if A is B then B is necessarily A. that’s not the case with categories, it is the case with discrete things.

for example, all Arms are Limbs, but not all Limbs are Arms. → this is the category version
your left arm is your upper left limb (we can just assume directions, don’t need to get too specific with that, that would be petty), and your upper left limb is also your left arm. → this is the specific version.

So, if they are categories, step 3 is incorrect and does not follow from 1 and 2. If they are specific things, then you can skip steps 2-4, step 1 implies step 5 by itself. In all cases, step 4 is just gibberish.

Good thinking. My argument then becomes:

1. All Interpreting belongs in the category “Being”.
2. All Being belongs in the category “X”.
3. All Interpreting belongs in the category “X”. [from 1 and 2]
4. All Interpreting all Being as belonging in the category “X” belongs in the category “X”. [from 3]
5. All Interpreting belongs in the category “Interpreting”.
6. All Being belongs in the category “Interpreting”. [from 4 and 5]
7. Being = Interpreting. [from 1 and 6]

I guess the crux of the argument, or the crucial argument, is this:

1. All Interpreting all Being as belonging in the category “X” belongs in the category “X”.
2. All Interpreting all Being as belonging in the category “Interpreting” belongs in the category “Interpreting”.
3. All Being belongs in the category “Interpreting”. [from 1 and 2]

The question is then what’s invalid about this crucial argument.

P.S.: You speak of “steps”. However, there is no step 4, for instance, but only a statement # 4. Are you saying statement # 4 is gibberish, or that it does not follow from statement # 3?

[Sauwelios]

@jonquil

@Sauwelios

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with its soundness, i.e., with the truth values of its statements.

1. All birds are bees.
2. All bees are seas.
3. All birds are seas.

This is a perfectly valid argument, though all its statements are false.

If that’s the case, then why bother with it? Anybody can make a syllogism, valid or invalid.

Your question is beyond the scope of this thread: see the title.

[jonquil]

@Sauwelios

@jonquil

@Sauwelios

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with its soundness, i.e., with the truth values of its statements.

1. All birds are bees.
2. All bees are seas.
3. All birds are seas.

This is a perfectly valid argument, though all its statements are false.

If that’s the case, then why bother with it? Anybody can make a syllogism, valid or invalid.

Your question is beyond the scope of this thread: see the title.

No problem. I think that you are just struggling with a way to form abstractions into alebraic syllogisms, but I thought you really wanted to know whether a particular syllogism was valid.

[Debaitor]

@Sauwelios

You don’t care much about truth, do you.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=as

From your own quotation:

“late 12c., worn-down form of O.E. alswa “quite so” (see also).”

Old English = Anglican Tradition, [size=200]LOOOOOOOOOOOL!!![/size]

Then you accuse me of being unable to read, LOL!!! =D>

@Sauwelios

I’ll define it, in this context at least, as “thus:”.

You’re wrong.

Thus and is contain different logical uses, rules, and implications.

And quite pretending that you can “think” English/Angian. You cannot. You’re not “English” at all although you clearly want to pretend you are.

Stick with your obsession and Nietzsche pedantry. Never stray from the tautological and solipsistic mindset you’ve entwined yourself within.

That should help your “”““logical””“” apparatus.

[Sauwelios]

@jonquil

@Sauwelios

@jonquil

If that’s the case, then why bother with it? Anybody can make a syllogism, valid or invalid.

Your question is beyond the scope of this thread: see the title.

No problem. I think that you are just struggling with a way to form abstractions into alebraic syllogisms, but I thought you really wanted to know whether a particular syllogism was valid.

I do. Whether it’s valid. And not just a syllogism, but a longer argument (though the crucial argument does appear to be a syllogism).

[tentative]

Of course, you forgot to mention the next sentence… Related to Ger. als “as, than.”, which fits the context of Sauwelios’ usage of the word.

[Sauwelios]

@Debaitor

@Sauwelios

You don’t care much about truth, do you.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=as

From your own quotation:

“late 12c., worn-down form of O.E. alswa “quite so” (see also).”

Old English = Anglican Tradition, [size=200]LOOOOOOOOOOOL!!![/size]
Then you accuse me of being unable to read, LOL!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: =D> :banana-dance:

Maybe you’re just not very well able to type. You wrote “Anglian”, not “Anglican”, several times.

@Sauwelios

I’ll define it, in this context at least, as “thus:”.

You’re wrong.

Thus and is contain different logical uses, rules, and implications.

“Is”?

And quite pretending that you can “think” English/Angian. You cannot. You’re not “English” at all although you clearly want to pretend you are.

“Angian”?

Stick with your obsession and Nietzsche pedantry. Never stray from the tautological and solipsistic mindset you’ve entwined yourself within. :banana-dance:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That should help your “”““logical””“” apparatus.

I thought the minimum age here was 13.

[Debaitor]

@Sauwelios

Maybe you’re just not very well able to type. You wrote “Anglian”, not “Anglican”, several times.

Anglian Linguistic patterns are contained within Anglican Tradition.

@Sauwelios

“Is”?

Mmmhmmmmm.

@Sauwelios

“Angian”?

I meant Anglian there.

[Sauwelios]

@Debaitor

@Sauwelios

Maybe you’re just not very well able to type. You wrote “Anglian”, not “Anglican”, several times.

Anglian Linguistic patterns are contained within Anglican Tradition.

Then you used the word wrong. The root of “as” is Germanic: see also http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/as#Etymology_1.

@Sauwelios

“Is”?

Mmmhmmmmm.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose that that’s a no. Now note what the OED says:

[size=95]Equivalent to so; any distinction in use is purely idiomatic.
[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=as][/size]

“Thus” and “so” are synonymous, and “thus” fits better in the context.

[jonquil]

@Sauwelios

@jonquil

you are just struggling with a way to form abstractions into alebraic syllogisms, but I thought you really wanted to know whether a particular syllogism was valid.

I do. Whether it’s valid. And not just a syllogism, but a longer argument (though the crucial argument does appear to be a syllogism).

Well, good luck with all that.

This is the specific syllogism I was considering invalid according to the fact that many beings cannot be equated with interpreting, such as a rock or a pencil.

1. Interpreting is Being [which need not mean that all Being is Interpreting].
2. Being is X.
3. Interpreting is X. [from 1 and 2]
4. Interpreting Being as X is X. [from 3]
5. Being is Interpreting. [from 4]

This syllogism is flawed and invalid.