 |
| Mild winter |
Preface
In this review I have reasoned it necessary to work through the methodology provided by the author and this has taken several posts.
If this is a problem, by all means please feel free to blame my British theses advisers and reviewers...
Or email my friend 'Chuck' at the 'complaints department' that sort of, lives up the hill, the opposite direction of the Fraser River, in the two photos provided.
I have been taking professional advice and I loaded my CV to LinkedIn and also upgraded my profile.
Symbolic Logic & Propositions
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.
Chapter 2: The Essentials Of Logical Structure
The logical form of a thing depends on its structure. (45). The way it is put together and how its several parts relate to each other. (45).
Quote:
'Without adding or subtracting any of the factors in the composition of a thing, we may utterly change the character by changing the relations of various factors to each other.' (45).
She uses the examples of the names Ronald, Roland and Arnold. They have exactly the same letters, but the relative positions of these letters are different. (45).
Properties related to each other or that may be related to each other, these characteristics may be understood as elements. (47-48). So, elements constitute a structure but also when the elements combine they relate to one another. (48).
Quote:
'The elements which are connected by a relation are its terms.' (49).
Every relation must have terms in order to become visible and understandable. (48).
The example of two terms 'north of' and 'Montreal' are provided. (48). For 'north of'' to make sense as a term in context, it needs to relate to the term 'Montreal'.
Quote:
'The commonest means of expressing a relation among several terms is the proposition. (50). An example provided is 'Brutus killed Caesar' and 'Abraham was the father of Isaac'. (50).
Quote:
'Any symbolic structure, such as a sentence, expresses a proposition, if some symbol in it is understood to represent a relation. and the whole construct is understood to assert the elements (denoted by the other symbols) are thus related.' (50-51).
The author writes that to avoid ambiguity with literary grammar and syntax. words are replaced in symbolic logic with arbitrary symbols. (52).
For those that have followed my work, I, of course dealt academically primarily with propositions, premises and conclusions in the grammatical, syntax form within theses writing and in questionnaires and surveys. I did however deal with some symbolic logic in my review of philosophical work and philosophy of religion. Alvin C. Plantinga's work being a classic example.
Finally we arrive at some symbols...
The author's first example:
A=Jones
B=Jones' wife
Jones killed his wife
kd=Killed
Therefore
A kd B (52).
Second example:
C=Xanthippe
D=Socrates
wf=Wife of
Therefore
C wf D (52).
Third example:
bt=The relation this preposition names
A bt, B, C,
The author states this is to be read "A is between B and C". (52).
I can add more material on this in comments section following the original posting and this will be a method going forward in future posts, in order to keep articles reasonably brief.
