Antifeminism?

The Fraser River: July 12

Antifeminism

Lately on You Tube, I have noticed some 'men's movement' videos in the featured videos under 'Recommended'. I have watched a few of these videos. I have viewed over the years several sermons on dating and marriage, which I do use for material for my academic websites. I also have viewed, over the years secular and Christian psychological lectures on human nature. Perhaps this explains why these videos appear.

To be clear, any kind of the 'men's movement' or antifeminism is not embraced within my personal worldview.

Much of the philosophy, so far, is nearly identical to psychological material from secular perspectives on dating and marriage.

One gentlemen I  have listened to, makes some good and reasonable philosophical points that I can agree with based on how I have been treated by many women within western society and the Church. But, he is also so radically negative on women, with unbalanced evaluations, that I will not endorse this person or embed one of his videos. He supports MGTOW: Men going their own way.

This presenter reasons that he needs to share his views with the men of western society. He opines that within evolution, due to feminism, women now have been exposed as having an evil nature.

Of course, with my years of study on the problem of evil, theodicy, free will and determinism, this interests me.

The presenter is correct that women have an evil nature, as do men. A biblical worldview explains the universal fall of humanity (Genesis 1-3) and the corrupted and sinful nature of both male and female (Romans). A finite nature that is sinful by nature and choice, is not perfectly good. Therefore, strictly speaking, humanity is evil. A Reformed theological perspective of total depravity is that humanity is depraved and tainted in nature as a whole. This does not mean that people are maximally evil.

I do not reason that a reasonable solution to degrees of feminism and antifeminism is for both sides to villainize the other sex. As bad as many of the attitudes in western society today are, including  by some in the Christian Church, I do not agree with teaching that each sex should avoid dating and marriage, and only use the other side for sexual activity, which seems to be the implication of many of the radical antifeminism and feminism approaches. I am not stating all the views expressed are radical. As with many worldviews, concepts can range, including from very moderate, moderate to radical.

A biblical, New Testament response is that through divine enlightenment by the gospel message, for male and female to repent of sin within the battle of sexes and seek the guidance of God.

Note:

Blackburn provides a definition of feminism, where feminism is committed to correcting biases leading to the subordination of women. (137). In my view, this is not by definition, strictly equated with 'radical feminism', although radical feminism will take place as forms of feminism.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four

Near the Fraser River, yesterday

Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Quaternio terminorum

This is the fallacy of four terms. (171). The standard three line argument requires that one term be repeated in the first two lines, and not be within the conclusion. (171). This is in the context of syllogistic reasoning. (171).

Common example within philosophy:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Pirie reasons that 'we cannot deduce new relationships between terms by using a middle term common to both-there isn't one.'

Blackburn explains that a syllogism is the presentation of one proposition from two premises. (368). In other words, two premises (propositions) and then a conclusion.

Logically fallacious

'Description: This fallacy occurs in a categorical syllogism when the syllogism has four terms rather than the requisite three (in a sense, it cannot be a categorical syllogism to begin with!) If it takes on this form, it is invalid.'

However, not all valid and sound argumentation holds to syllogism

University of Kentucky

From the University of Kentucky:

'argument

An Argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The point of an argument is to give the receiver of the argument good reason to believe new information.'

Premises are not limited, in every case.

University of Windsor 2011

Cited

'G.C. GODDU Department of Philosophy University of Richmond'

'ABSTRACT: Is it possible for an argument to have either zero premises or an infinite number of premises? I shall argue that regardless of how you conceive of arguments you should accept that an argument could have an infinite number of premises. The zero case is more complicated since the matter seems to depend not only on the metaphysics of arguments, but also the nature and function of arguing. I shall argue that at least a plausible case can be made for the possibility of zero premise arguments.'

'How many premises can an argument have?'

'If what I have argued here is correct, then everyone should accept the possibility of infinite premise arguments. On the other hand, whether we should accept zero-premise arguments seems to depend upon the resolution of other highly controversial options in argumentation theory such as—does every argument need a corresponding act of arguing? Does defining argument require an appeal to function? Trying to resolve these issues is a project for another time. At the very least, however, I hope that I have sketched out a position according to which it is straightforwardly possible for there to be zero-premise arguments.'

End citations

I can embrace the idea of many premises and one conclusion. I would present any other conclusion, within another argument. I would prefer this to the rarely used argument with more than one conclusion.

In humility, this material is more within the disciplines of classical/ancient philosophy. I am still a student in regard to fallacies. I am educated at a PhD level in philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. Philosophy of Religion is within the discipline of philosophy, as are my specialties, theodicy, the problem of evil, free will and determinism, but I worked within Religion and Theology departments in the United Kingdom. These disciplines are also under the umbrella of philosophical theology and within that the nature of God can be added as an academic specialty of mine.

I am not a classical/ancient philosopher. I have consistently claimed to only be a philosopher of religion. This also explains why I am reviewing page by page the philosophical texts of Pirie and Langer. To gain more knowledge of classical/ancient philosophy which does overlap with theology and philosophy of religion.

Argumentation presented within my Canadian, Christian, academic career and my secular United Kingdom, MPhil and PhD theses degrees was not by definition, syllogistic. Syllogistic argumentation would be allowed as exception only.

While validity and soundness was required, three or more premises were often provided (and academically required) in arguments, in support of a conclusion, within written text. This is also the case on my websites. I have not attempted to write syllogistic arguments, although I do attempt to present logical and sound arguments.

Non-syllogistic, deductive arguments were used within my academic work and are presented on my websites. When providing four or more premises, I am not attempting a strict syllogistic presentation.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Zero class?

Majorca, Spain: Facebook. This is one of my favourites, colourized.

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

The Langer philosophy text review, continues.

Some key symbols from the textbook:
≡df = Equivalence by definition : = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
 ˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).

Two classes are mutually exclusive if their product is a null-class, as in class A and class B, then A x B = 0. (142). Langer uses the example that there are no individuals that are both Lords and Commons; this class of persons is zero. (142). There are no carnivorous cows. (142). 'A' means carnivorous and 'B' means 'cows', then A x B = 0. (142).

Is this example, Langer changed from A + B to A x B. It appears she is writing that the amount of Lords x (times) the amount of Commons produces no one class of persons. A zero class.

A related entry: April 2017 null class

Theological examples:

There are no individuals that are both

A = Liberal theologians
B = Conservative theologians

For the sake of this argument, they are mutually exclusive. Of course there are theologians with varying positions, but this is a philosophical symbolic logic article and not a primarily theological entry.

Therefore:

A x B = 0

or

L x C = 0

L ⊨ ˜ C

Liberal theologians entail that they are not conservative theologians.

L ˜ ⊃ C

Liberal theologians are not the same as a conservative theologians.

∃! L + ∃! C ∴ R

There exists, liberal theologians plus conservative theologians, therefore, there are religious scholars.

Based on Langer's philosophical symbolic logic; liberal theologians and conservative theologians would be mutually exclusive in a similar way that would be Lords and Commons. They would be of null class, zero class.

However:

Both Lords and Commons would be British citizens. They are both is the class of United Kingdom citizens.

Both liberal theologians and conservative theologians would be in the class of religious scholars.

quickmeme.com

Presentation over content

Duino, Italy, Google+ added colour

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Presentation over content

When a claim, or premises, conclusion (s) making arguments, presented do not establish true content or logical validity. Instead an attempt is made to influence. (170).

Influencing the reader or listener may be more effective than a 'mundane' argument. (170). The fallacy resides in that presentation is not in the packaging but in the content. (170).

In my online psychological studies, I have read and heard those that opine that the best looking political candidate usually wins an election. The looks of this person is often more important than his/her platform. When this occurs this would be presentation over content. People are influenced to vote for the perceived best looking candidate.

Pirie:

'This book is about logic, not marketing'. (171). Pirie places this fallacy within The Informal fallacies of relevance (Intrusion). (230).

Fallacy files

Cited

'Exposure: The distinction between a Formal and an Informal Fallacy is that a formal fallacy is based solely on logical form, and an informal fallacy takes into account the non-logical content of the argument. This roughly parallels the distinction between deductive and non-deductive modes of reasoning. Typically, formal fallacies are committed by deductive arguments, whereas informal fallacies occur in arguments that could be at best inductively strong. However, there are exceptions to this pattern, for instance Begging the Question.

Source: Robert Audi (General Editor), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995.'

alexdapiata.com