The metaphysical error comes from the assumption that "all men" is the subject of "all men are dead" and that "Socrates" is the subject of "Socrates is dead", both of which have the same meaning. It makes it possible to think that, in a sense, "all men" refers to a whole of the same kind as "Socrates". This led Aristotle to say that kind is, in a sense, substance. Aristotle was careful to qualify this statement, but his disciples, especially Puebli, were not so careful. Because of this mistake, Aristotle fell into another kind of mistake. He thought that the predicate of a predicate could become the predicate of the original subject. If I say, "Socrates is a Greek, and all Greeks are men," Aristotle will think that "man" is the predicate of "Greek," and that "Greek" is the predicate of "Socrates," so it is obvious that "man" is the predicative of "Socrates.". But in fact,interactive whiteboard for schools, "man" is not the predicate of "Greek". The distinction between the name and the predicate, or, in the language of metaphysics, between the individual and the universal, is thus obliterated by him, with disastrous consequences for philosophy. One of the confusions is to imagine that a class with only one member is also equal to that one member. This makes it impossible to have a correct theory of the number one,interactive digital whiteboard, and results in an endless bad metaphysics of the one. (2) Overvaluation of the syllogism The syllogism is only one of the deductive arguments. Mathematics is entirely deductive, but syllogism almost never appears in mathematics. It is possible, of course, to rewrite the mathematical argument in the form of a syllogism, but that would be very artificial and would not make it more convincing. Take mathematics as an example: Suppose I buy something worth four yuan and sixty-three cents and pay a five-dollar bill, how much change should I get? It would be absurd to write such a simple number in the form of a syllogism, and it would hide the true nature of the argument. In addition, there are non-syllogistic inferences in logic, such as: "a horse is an animal, so the head of a horse is the head of an animal.". In fact, a valid syllogism is only one part of a valid deduction, electronic board for classroom ,smart board whiteboard, and it has no logical priority over the other parts. This attempt to give primacy to syllogism in the deductive method leads philosophers astray on the question of the nature of mathematical reasoning. Kant saw that mathematics was not a syllogism, and he reasoned that mathematics used the principles of superlogic; however, he believed that the principles of superlogic were as reliable as the principles of logic. Kant, like his predecessors, was led astray by his reverence for Aristotle, albeit on a different path. (3) Overestimation of the deductive method. The Greeks, in general, gave it greater importance as a source of knowledge than the modern philosophers. Aristotle is less wrong than Plato in this respect; he repeatedly acknowledges the importance of induction, and he also pays considerable attention to the question: How do we know the first premises on which deduction must start? But he, like the other Greeks, gave undue importance to deduction in his epistemology. We may agree, for example, that Mr. Smith is mortal, and we may say, very roughly, that we know this because we know that all men are mortal. But what we actually know is not that "all men die"; rather, we know something like "all men born one hundred and fifty years ago died, and almost all men born one hundred years ago died.". That's why we think Mr. Smith is going to die. But this argument is inductive, not deductive. The inductive method is not so exact and reliable as the deductive method, for it offers only probability without accuracy; but on the other hand it gives us something new which the deductive method cannot give us. Knowledge 。
With the exception of logic and pure mathematics, all important reasoning is inductive rather than deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology, both of which derive their original principles from a text that cannot be questioned, a code or a sacred book. In addition to discussing the syllogism of the First Chapter of Analysis, Aristotle's other works are also of considerable importance in the history of philosophy. One of them is the short work of Categories. The Neo-Platonist Puffelli wrote a commentary on this book, which had a great influence on medieval philosophy; but for the moment let us leave Puffelli alone and confine ourselves to Aristotle. I must confess that I have never been able to understand the exact meaning of the word "category", whether in Aristotle's works or in the works of Kant and Hegel. I myself do not believe that the term "category" is useful in philosophy to denote any definite idea. Aristotle believes that there are ten categories: namely, substance, quantity, nature, relation, place, time, gesture, condition, activity,touch screen interactive whiteboard, and suffering. The only definition mentioned for the term "category" is: "every use that is not a compound"-followed by the list above. This seems to mean that every word whose meaning is not a combination of the meanings of other words represents an entity or a quantity, etc. However, there is no mention of the principle on which the list of these ten categories is based. hsdsmartboard.com
History of Western philosophy
-
Henri Sauriol
- Ausflügler
- Beiträge: 11
- Registriert: 02.09.2022, 01:13
Re: History of Western philosophy
This is really very nice post you shared, i like the post, thanks for sharing.. 1970s clothing
Re: History of Western philosophy
protection of files along with a signature on it is a key element that is looked forward by consumers and if they do not get it they get disappointed. But now that is taken care by signnow.com/features/signnow-integrations-and-api in the US. This brings secuirity in the minds of customers and they are not willing to move to nay other web or firm