Explosion In Aristotle's Argument

230 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Basic principles of logic

1) Explain why arguments with contradictory premises are valid. This principle, referred to as ‘explosion’, is often used as an argument for the necessity of classical logic. Explain the way in which this argument works.
The principle of “explosion” in classical Logic consists that anything can be inferred from a contradictory proposition. In other words, we could conclude anything we want out of a contradictory proposition.
For example:
1. The Earth is in the habitable zone of the Solar System
2. The Earth is not in the habitable zone of the Solar System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aristotle is a Chinese Philosopher
Both 2 arguments are valid in classical logic. The premise is false, despite the

Show More
Related

  • American Colossus The Triumph Of Capitalism Summary

    1553 Words  | 4 Pages

    By providing a base argument and the implications of

    Read More

  • Reconstruction of Aristotle's Argument from Physics Book 2, Chapter 8.

    614 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument from Physics Book 2, chapter 8, 199a9. Aristotle in this chapter tries to make an analogy between nature and action to establish that both, nature and action, have an end.

    Read More

  • Moore Paradox Essay

    1230 Words  | 3 Pages

    A logical contradiction is an assertion or a claim that contains both a proposition and its denial given in the form p and not-p. In this case, both of these statements cannot both be true due to the law of noncontradiction. Similar to the principle of bivalence, this law states the declarative statement must be either true or false and cannot be both true at the same time in the same sense. A classic example of a logical contradiction is to assert that “it is raining and it is not raining.” The proposition p is “it is raining” and its denial not-p is “it is not raining.” Because “it is raining” and “it is not raining” cannot be both true at the same time, this statement leads to a logical contradiction when we assume the principle of bivalence or the law of noncontradiction. Some other examples would include statements such as “I know that nothing can be known” and “All general claims have exceptions.” Unlike a logical contradiction, a performative contradiction arises “when the content of an assertion contradicts the act of asserting it or the presuppositions of asserting

    Read More

  • Paradox And Irony In The Declaration Of Independence

    133 Words  | 1 Pages

    Contradictions are ideas or statements that oppose one another, such as paradox and irony. Paradox means that a statement contradicts itself, which may or may not be true; while irony is when you say one idea but mean another. For instance, The Declaration of Independence is one example which Americans show their contradictions. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal” at the same time Americans had slaves in their possession which evoked all African-Americans to obtain any natural rights as indicated in The Declaration of Independence (194). In addition, the paradox involved with this statement is a reason, which makes this country a travesty. All of these writers relate to The Declaration of Independence when dealing with contradictions

    Read More

  • The Raven's Paradox

    1354 Words  | 3 Pages

    A paradox stems from a statement that apparently contradicts itself yet might still be true. In most cases logical paradoxes are essentially known to be invalid but are used anyways to promote critical thinking. The Raven’s paradox is an example of a paradox that essentially goes against what most logical paradoxes stand for in that it tries to make a valid claim through inductive logic. Carl Hempel is known for his famous accepting of this paradox with minor adjustments by the use of the contraposition rule. In this paper, however, I argue that Hempel’s solution to the Raven’s paradox is actually unsuccessful because he fails to take into account a possible red herring that serves as evidence against his solution. Irvin John Good is responsible for the formulation of the red herring argument as he tries to prove that the observation of a black raven can potentially negate the Raven’s paradox as valid. In addition to Good’s claim, Karl Popper and his view of falsificationism also functions as evidence to reject Hempel’s solution. Using Popper’s view as a basis, Israel Scheffler and Nelson Goodman formulate the concept of selective confirmation to reject the contraposition rule used by Hempel. Based off of all of the rejections that Hempel’s solution has it can clearly be seen that the Raven’s paradox has flaws that principally lead it to it being invalid.

    Read More

  • Forrester's Paradox: A Revision Of The Good Samaritan

    922 Words  | 2 Pages

    As learned and reiterated throughout the semester, a paradox is a statement or number or statements which consist of apparently true premises with an apparently valid argument, yet lead to an obviously false conclusion. An exploration of these types of statements often leads one to search for an error in one of the premises through various factors such as vagueness or semantic wording to rid of the false conclusion altogether. An example of this sort of situation is shown in Forrester’s Paradox, a revision of the Good Samaritan Paradox, written by James William Forrester. This paradox has several premises that appear to be true with seemingly valid reasoning. However, its premises lead to a false conclusion, making this a paradox.

    Read More

  • Aristotle's Function Argument

    978 Words  | 2 Pages

    Aristotle raises the function argument in order to find out what the “final good” is for a human being. He describes this “final good” as some goal that every human’s actions should strive for. At first, he chooses happiness as this ultimate goal, and contends that it is a self-sufficient good in which all human do and desire. He also mentions that this final good can only be achieved by being “virtuous”. However, he is not satisfied with happiness; happiness is a mere feeling/sensation and does not provide a clear explanation of what the “final good” is. Furthermore, couldn’t a psychopath achieve his self-sufficient happiness when he murders for the pleasure/happiness

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Aristotle's Rhetoric Audre Lorde

    479 Words  | 1 Pages

    Of Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric, Audre Lorde’s essay is comprised largely by logos complemented by pathos and the least by ethos. Ethos is obvious when she describes herself in terms of social groups, giving credibility to herself to justify her assertions. In her words, Lorde is a “forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple.” She explains at the beginning of her essay that she has been identified as an active member of these socially taboo groups and thus has the right to demand attention to her claims. Logos is seen throughout her essay, often following a bold statement. Her arguments not only consist of reasoning but also personal experiences and real-life occurrences, such as Lorde’s question of the lacking representation of poetry by Back women and the horrifying female circumcision supported by Jomo Kenyatta in Africa. Lorde’s use of logos is very effective because it gives the reader a relatable narrative to better understand her bold conclusions. The third mode of Aristotle’s rhetoric is pathos, which Lorde uses to a slightly lesser degree than logos but just as effectively. Examples of Lorde’s use of pathos are her descriptive language, metaphors and lists.

    Read More

  • Growing Up Empty by Loretta Schwartz-Nobel

    668 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to the notes from class, true paradox is defined as two ideas or principles that seem irreconcilable with each other, but prove on closer scrutiny, simultaneously valid. The theory of paradox is recommended to address and remove the ineffectiveness of opposing viewpoints. The benefit of the theory of paradox is that it seeks to recognize and value all perspectives. It also encourages using the effective aspects of all perspectives.

    Read More

  • Aristotle And The Philosophy Of Socrates And Aristotle

    799 Words  | 2 Pages

    Aristotle disagrees with his teacher, Plato in numerous ways, one of which is based on the concept of the “good.” While Socrates and Plato both believe in a highest Form of the “good” Aristotle believes that the Good is that which all things aim. However, some aims are only good instrumentally, such as money, so the ultimate Good must be something that is good in and of itself. What is the means of reaching this Good however; what allows us to pursue the highest Good? It seems to Aristotle that science is the answer. Science charges the rationality in human beings in order to perpetuate the actions that will lead us to happiness and he further extends this to say that political science must be the highest science that can be wrought. Political science is the science of running a state and further this is the means with which we dictate all else; therefore it is the highest science because it pursues the highest goals in everything that we do. This science is that which determines all other subordinate ends and hence, is made to be the highest means of reaching the highest end. Statesmen and political figures work to attain a good life for all and therefore represent the good of all humankind. However, what then is the highest Good to which political science now aims? In Aristotelian terms, happiness is the best good that deals as an all-inclusive end, or goal. We pursue political science in order to master this goal. Following this logic; we say that there is a highest goal to which we all aim, this goal is that of the highest science. The highest science is political science and it seeks the happiness of all others; therefore happiness is the highest Good to which we aim.

    Read More

  • Socrates Argument in the Crito

    1099 Words  | 3 Pages

    Socrates argues in the Crito that he shouldn't escape his death sentence because it isn't just. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom the warden demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. Socrates and Crito's argument proceeds from this point.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Aristotle's Poetics

    1322 Words  | 3 Pages

    “What is poetry?” Aristotle starts his Poetics book with this enchanting question. After reading Aristotle’s Poetics I began to think about poetry. Poetry to me is an art and art comes in very many different intermingled objects and ideas. After discussing what is art in my Fysem class and reading about it in Poetics, I will discuss in my paper what I think is art. Even though Aristotle’s Poetics is a lot about poetry, poetry is art and there are tons of properties the reader can use in any type of art based off of Aristotle’s Poetics.

    Read More

  • Undecidability in Becket's The Endgame

    1053 Words  | 3 Pages

    Undecidability involves the impossibility of deciding between two or more competing interpretations ... classical logic is founded on the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both A and not A at the same time. The postmodern gives particular emphasis to ways in which this law may be productively questioned or suspended. Undecidability splits the text, disorders it. Undecidability dislodges the principle of a single final meaning in a literary text (232).

    Read More

  • Principles Of Logic

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    When constructing an argument, the person must come from a logical perspective. In doing so, individuals must understand “the basic principles of logic”. According to D.Q. McInerny, in her book Being Logical, there are four principles of logic. This includes, the principle of individuality, the precept of the excluded middle, the principle of sufficient understanding, and the principle of contradiction. Along with the principles of logic, the language of logic should be taken into account with arguments.

    Read More

  • Importance Of Inductive Reasoning

    1579 Words  | 4 Pages

    Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. When we reason about any matter, we produce arguments to support our conclusions. Logic studies if the conclusion follows from the premises used or assumed, and if the premises provide good enough reason for accepting the conclusions drawn. Using the methods and techniques of logic—one can distinguish reliably between sound and faulty reasoning.

    Read More

More about Explosion In Aristotle's Argument

Open Document