Your form defines your class?

Not again, yet...

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

I continue with the review of the Langer philosophical text, as I am also reviewing the Pirie philosophical text in entries.

Concepts and classes

A class is a class of so and so's, as in each member of the class has a certain character. (115). Langer uses the following example, bear in mind this was written in the 1950s and 1960s: A man belongs in the class of politicians, only if he is a politician. Being a politician equals being in the class of politician. (115).

Being a theologian would place one in the class of theologian.

T=Theologian
C=Class of theologian
B=Bible scholar
⊃ = means the same as
⊨ = entails
˜ = not

T ⊃ C (A theologian means the same as the class of theologian.)
T ⊨ C (A theologian entails the same as the class of theologian.)
T ˜ B  (A theologian is not the same as a bible scholar.)

And the two classes would be different.

T ˜ B would be true strictly speaking. It could be stated that a theologian is not necessarily a bible scholar. But of course many theologians are bible scholars, but not all as my Dead Sea Scrolls scholar professor at Trinity Western University would often state of himself:  'I am not a theologian'.

I do consider myself a bible scholar, but as I am not a linguist or archaeologist; my main academic concentrations would be biblical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion.

In a similar way some theologians are philosophers of religion and some are not. My view is that it is a significant intellectual handicap to be a theologian and not a philosopher of religion, or a biblical theologian and not a philosopher of religion, but that is my take. This based on the availability of less cumulative facts and knowledge to formulate truth.

I also view it as more of a significant handicap than being a biblical theologian, philosophical theologian or philosopher of religion that is not a linguist. I reason it is more straightforward to reference linguistic terms at least. I am not stating that being a linguist is easier. Not at all! I am not as natural at languages than at theological and philosophical work. I am stating that it is more straightforward to reference Hebrew and Greek words and meanings than it is to learn philosophy and philosophy of religion. But it is debatable. However to be clear, I am by no means including learning archaeology!

Defining forms of classes

Langer uses the proposition x must die (116).

If

Socrates is mortal and/or Socrates must die

Plato is mortal and/or Plato must die

Aristotle is mortal and/or Aristotle must die (116).

These are members of the same class being:

 x must die (116).

If those subjects are mortals, the proposition is true, if subjects are not mortals, the proposition is false. (116-117). Those subjects that are mortals would be in a class, as those that are not mortals would be in another class.

The form defines the class. (117).