deciding which product will increase their overall satisfaction, the main goal for suppliers is to convince customers that they have the desirable product quality at the right price. A good method to gain customers’ attention is the customer value proposition, it is defined as a business or marketing statement that describes why a customer should buy a product or use a service. This technique has attract managers’ attention around the world because of its effectiveness convincing and influencing customers
therefore the nature of propositions would reveal the nature of the language that represents it. So, Wittgenstein based his theory of language on the nature of propositions. Within the nature of propositions, Wittgenstein found a satisfactory account of logical necessity. This lead to the fact that the limits of language were logically necessary. In this essay, I shall give an account of Wittgenstein's theory of propositions and show that his elementary propositions are in fact divisible. I
term "proposition," both of which can be defined provisionally as the bearers of truth or falsity. In most of his discussion, however, he uses the language of "propositions;" consequently, I do the same in this paper. The first task incumbent on the expounder of Mill’s views of propositions is to specify the question regarding propositions that Mill intends to answer. In Book I, Chapter v, § 1 of A System of Logic, Mill distinguishes two kinds of inquiry concerning the nature of propositions. The
Introduction It has been said that California’s 1996 Proposition 209 is misleading. It can also be said that it is discriminating to women and minorities. Proposition 209 was passed on November, 5 1996 but has not taken effect since the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional in February 1997. Body As I stated before, Proposition 209 was passed in 1996 by California voters. It was passed by a margin of 56% to 46% but was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997 and has not taken
29 ("If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error. But I do not make a proposition; therefore, I am not in error.") The argument is treated as representing an ampliative or inductive inference rather than a deductive one. As Nagarjuna says in verse 30: "That [denial] of mine [in verse 29] is a non-apprehension of non-things" and non-apprehension is the averting of arguments or "the relinquishing of all views." "Not making a proposition P" would be not speaking
respective theorists' proposition to establish a foundation (for the purpose of this essay) for discussing the applications of Artificial Intelligence, both now and in the future. Strong AI Thesis Strong AI Thesis, according to Searle, can be described in four basic propositions. Proposition one categorizes human thought as the result of computational processes. Given enough computational power, memory, inputs, etc., machines will be able to think, if you believe this proposition. Proposition two, in essence
arguments within each proposition in the essay. It will then discuss the idea for a philosophical account of human history (eighth and ninth propositions), it will provide a brief explanation of John Rawls’ contemporary, Kantian influenced “Law of Peoples” and will finally briefly observe Kantian influence in contemporary international politics offering some critique of the Kantian universal notion of freedom. Kant begins the essay with an account of nature. The first proposition describes a determinism
curriculum that simultaneously instructed students all the required classes while teaching them the English language. For such method, bilingual teachers were the focal point for the success of individual students of any class level. Prior to Proposition 227, California’s programs for immigrant students included English as a Second Language, in which students were taught the English language for part of the day, and bilingual education, in which students took classes taught in their native tongues
Substitutivity The problem of substitutivity has always been a thorn in the side of the study of semantic logic. Why does it sometimes appear that terms that refer to identical objects cannot be replaced with each other in propositions without altering the truth value or meaning of said proposition? Leibniz's Law would seem to ensure that we could perform such an action without anything significant having changed, but this is clearly not so. I intend to look at the history, not only of this problem, but of
(Heath 51) At one point in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, a pigeon claims Alice to be a serpent, because serpents eat eggs, and Alice eats eggs. (Carroll A/T 47) The propositions would be then what is quantified in symbolic logic as universal, with the functional word “all”. Using the notation AE to represent the proposition “Alice eats eggs”, SE to represent “Serpents eat eggs”, concluding AS, “Alice is a serpent”, and “” to mean “therefore”, the argument is represented in simple terms as:
What Anti-Individualists Cannot Know A Priori ABSTRACT: The attempt to hold both anti-individualism and privileged self-knowledge may have the absurd consequence that someone could know a priori propositions that are knowable only empirically. This would be so if such an attempt entailed that one could know a priori both the contents of one’s own thoughts and the anti-individualistic entailments from those thought-contents to the world. For then one could also come to know a priori (by simple
Fire, Brimstone, and Greener Pastures for Religious Involvement Lacking the ready opportunity to visit a unique congregation while stuck, carless, on campus over break, I instead focus on a "field trip" that my churchs' Sunday School class took one Sunday morning last summer. Picture if you will a group of white Presbyterian teenagers hopping into a shiny church van and cruising 15 minutes south, into the poorer, blacker reaches of inner-city Memphis (where neighborhood segregation is still very
theoretical preferences. In his papers, books and conferences, Maturana frequently begins proposing that: Everything is said by an observer to another observer that could be him or herself. In this paper I intend to analyze logically this proposition, trying to focus the question of contradiction. In Maturana's work, we do not find more than traces or clues that could help us in this kind of philosophical investigation. However, if we take logic as the main philosophical method these clues
Aristotle, there are four types of propositions: the A proposition ("All S are P"), the E proposition ("No S are P"), the I proposition ("Some S are P"), and the O proposition ("Some S are not P"). These propositional types represent all of the possible combinations of the dichotomies of affirmative/negative and universal/particular. Each makes a claim that a certain essent (the particular I and O propositions) or an entire class of essents (the universal A and E propositions), the subject or subject-class
the Stoic causal system, we should get our feet wet with the definition of some terms which I will employ frequently throughout the paper. Most importantly, I believe, is the concept of lekta. Despite the existence of complex lekta in the form of propositions, a lekton is simply a piece of language that articulates a state of affairs, carries a truth value, and “subsists in accordance with a rational impression” (LS 196). While there are many intriguing aspects of lekta, for the purposes of this paper
Proposition 36 The Real Truth As you might already be aware there is a ballot initiative on this upcoming November’s election about drugs, and drug treatment. This measure is called Proposition 36. If this measure were to pass, state law would be changed, so that certain non-violent adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, not prison. Right now California is ranked number one in the nation for its rate of imprisonment for drug
if I look at it from different sides, or if I take it into my hands, touch it, open it, turn its leaves, and so forth? There are two conceptions here. One of them says that however I set about it, I shall never be able to verify the proposition completely. A proposition always keeps a back door open, as it were.
deciding the fate of the California cougar (Felis concolor), Proposition 197, was not passed. This would have repealed the 1990 passing of Proposition 117, which banned all trophy hunting of mountain lions, allowing only trained Department of Fish and Game officials to kill lions that became a threat to public safety and welfare. While compassion is felt for the victims of the relatively few mountain lion attacks, the denial of Proposition 197, which would have ended a 25 year ban on cougar hunting
alluring and great questions in epistemology is how a priori knowledge is possible, and what sorts of truth can be known in this way. Some propositions are true in virtue of their meaning alone. For example, look at the proposition; all bachelors are people. We know this truth to introspection and/or to memory. So, we know it by reason, but such analytic propositions are trivial and give us substantial knowledge. “Can reason give us substantial knowledge of anything, or is all a priori knowledge
Needed: A License to Drink Mike Brake is a writer for the communication department at the Oklahoma State Department of Education he wrote an article, “Needed: A License to Drink,” proposing a national system of licensing on drinking, with appropriate penalties. This means in order to drink one beer a person would have to obtain a license. The article is from Newsweek (March 14, 1994). Underage drinking is everywhere; high school, parties, and at college. How do they get the alcohol?