The Thread Killer®

Status
Not open for further replies.
Murph said:
Afternoon Grim.

Nice kill there Omega :)
Click to expand...

Hey Grim

@ Muprh yeah check this out!

The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based. The rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy. They are laws that guides and underline everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc.
The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:

1. The law of identity.
The law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A.
For the law of identity, Aristotle,[1] wrote:
Now "why a thing is itself" is a meaningless inquiry (for—to give meaning to the question 'why'—the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident—e.g., that the moon is eclipsed—but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical, unless one were to answer, 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this.' This, however, is common to all things and is a short and easy way with the question.) - Metaphysics, Book VII, Part 17

2. The law of non-contradiction
In logic, the law of non-contradiction ... states, in the words of Aristotle, that
"one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". (2)
[note Aristotle's use of indices: 'respect' & 'time']
see the Principle of contradiction

3. The law of the excluded middle
Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the "facts" themselves:
It is impossible, then, that 'being a man' should mean precisely 'not being a man', if 'man' not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. … And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call 'man', and others were to call 'not-man'; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.
(Metaphysics 4.4, W.D. Ross (trans.), GBWW 8, 525–526). (3)
see the Law of excluded middle
Click to expand...
 
Voicy said:
What happened to the days of packing bags at spar @ R5 / hr? Or mowing the teachers' lawns? I guess we were raised in a different time.
Click to expand...

I was cleaning tables at a restaurant age 16, babysitting since 15 - the parentals realised soon I made more money from the odd jobs i did than pocket money - so they stopped that income - was not impressed with them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top