Introduction to Philosophy & Logic (1999)
Lecture 34: Etymology and Structure of the Four Arguments

Transcript
================================================================================

singular statements. This student has two errors, this student's an universal statement that every student has two errors. And since I'm out, this is the way we get from the census to the universal statements that we leave, even later on in the case of the what? So just, right? Now, does the conclusion follow necessarily in this argument, right? If I cut open a thousand frogs and each one has a pre-generate heart, can I conclude necessarily that all frogs have three chambered hearts? No. But if I have a large number, I haven't seen an exception, right? I'll soon make the reasonable guess, right? Now, this is the way some people jump to the conclusion, which is contrary to Friar Lawrence's advice, right? Wisely and slow, they stumble, they run fast, right? They jump to the conclusion and say that every universal statement, whether affirmative or negative, right, is a what? A guess, right? It'd be a reasonable guess, but it's still a guess. Well, if it was by induction alone that I knew this, right, that would be reasonable, right? But is it by induction alone that I know that every hole is more than its part? So I come to the statement, every hole is more than its part, by seeing holes in their parts, right? So I come to it by induction, but I come to it by induction alone. And in the case of hole and part, I think I understand what a hole is and what a part is so that I can see that a hole must be more than one of its parts, right? The hole is something that is composed of parts, right? It has parts, right? But notice, if you take something like snow is white, right? I don't understand what snow is enough or what white is enough to see that snow must be white. See, I might say that all snow is white on the basis of induction alone, right? Or I wouldn't say on the basis of it alone, right? So though we do come to all universal statements to find induction, in some cases, we understand enough about the parts, right? To see that it must be so. And that's what's overlooked, right? See? Notice the word induction. It's a Latin word, right? The Greek word that is used to translate epigome as the same etymology. It'd say what? A leading in, right? Okay? So you're leading somebody into the universal statement. Through the, what? Cingular statements, right? But leading them into a universal whole, in a way, through the, what? Subject parts, right? Okay? And if you look at the word introduction, which is like we call it a sagogi, right? It also has that, basically, the same etymology. It's a leading, what? In, right? But an introduction to some science, you're being led into the whole science from some parts of that science, right? So it's more like the composing parts, right? In a way, I'm giving you the introduction to logic. We're not seeing the whole logic, right? But we are seeing certain parts of logic, right? And so you're being led into the whole and the parts, right? So there's a likeness between introduction and induction. They're not the same thing, right? And you'll notice in the etymology, the similarity, right, is that in both cases you're being led into the whole through the parts. but in one case it's a universal pole in action. In the other case it's more a composed pole, right? The word, I mentioned earlier in the course there, metaphor and translation, right? They have the same etymology, one in Greek, one in Latin. Carried over, right? In the case of translation, you carry over not the word, but the meaning. In the case of metaphor, you carry over the word. But as far as the etymology is concerned, there's no reason why it could be reversed, right? So in a way, induction, introduction, they have almost the same etymology, but the induction is used for leading one into the universal form of the part, and introduction more for the composed form. I also make a comparison there to the word inducement, which is now addressed more to the will or to the emotions than to the reason, right? What's an inducement? I take the example there, the economic example, where the guy says, you know, well, if you buy his car, I'll build a new pair of tires or something, right? He's trying to, what, induce you, lead you into accepting this car, right? Right. But it doesn't force you to buy it, but it does, right? But it does, in a way, what? Climb you a bit, right? He's pushing that direction, right? He sees you kind of hesitating, you know, and then he'll throw this in, you know, or how about a stereo or something, you know, something you'll throw in, you know. But that's true because it's forced, right? You use that for the army, too, induction, reduced. Again, the parts are becoming, you're giving it to the whole army. That's something that same sense, so I appreciate the word, huh? Okay. And notice the difference between the example and induction. In a way, the example goes from part to part, huh? It goes from a singular, one singular, to another singular, right? Sometimes we use the word particular, at least a singular, right? So you see, it's an argument from one particular to another particular at the same time, right? By induction, sometimes, we'll say it's an argument from many particulars to the, what? To the general, to the whole. For example, it's going from part to part, the anthem. Now, it's interesting how, in English now, the names that we have in English for these four arguments, two of them come from, what? Greek, right? As if the Latins didn't have a name for the last two arguments, right? And so you took over the Greek word, right? Or for the first two, they have a native Latin word, right? So, that's kind of sounding, right? The difficulty. The Greeks were the teachers of the Romans. A man learned it in grammar, you know. A man explained to us one time, you know, how the Greeks figured out the grammar of the Greek language. And the Romans couldn't figure out the grammar of their own language. But they learned from the Greeks something about the Greek grammar. And they saw, we had some things like that in Latin. And then the things they couldn't find, like, in the Greek, they just kind of tacked on to the things. And that's why the cases, you know, nominative, genitive, datative, abusive, datative, all screwed up in Latin, right? They don't fit the language. But in Greek, the case is in exactly the right order to fit the language. And then he said, we English, people, we borrow the Latin grammar. Try to imitate that, right? Rather than, you know, thinking through our own language, huh? So, um, the Greeks are superior. Grammatists, they learn their grammar from the Greeks, right? And the Romans, whatever philosophy they have is kind of borrowing from the Greeks, huh? It's kind of interesting here in logic, right? That the Greeks, right? In fact, the four arguments, right, the names which they found out in their language, right, the Romans, they spoke down at this point, and they used to go to Greek words, right, you know, even a word, an example of mine. Now, infonema is kind of scary, the etymology of the word, it's got en, en, and then thumas, right, now thumas, the time you get to Plato and Aristotle, thumas has a sense of anger usually, right, or courage, right, then, but if you go back earlier in the Greek, thumas has a sense of the, what, mind, then, okay, so in thumas means in the mind, right, okay, and in a way, that you're starting from something that is not, what, often singular, but something that is, what, more universal, or almost universal, something that is in the mind, right, okay, and a second thing that people sometimes know is about the infamy, that when a speaker uses an infamy, that when a speaker uses an infamy, he often doesn't state the universal aspect, right, if he thinks that the audience will what? They can have to understand it. Yeah, if they'll supply that, right, then, okay, let's see some examples of that from Shakespeare, now, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here a second, let me raise it here and he was handsome, and he was strong, he was a boxer and so on, right? But Jim was a good Catholic, right? So, an example I give the students a bike this way. Give a guy an inch and take a mile. Isn't that true girls? They didn't all admit that, right? Give a guy an inch and take a mile. So anyway, the one story that Jim told me about is he's put on the grill, right, and comes back to the apartment afterwards, see, and they sit on the sofa there making out of it, and the grill says to Jim, you can go as far as you'd like, see. Jim says, well, he says, in that case, he says, I could go all the way home. So I said, here's an exception to the rule. Give a guy an inch, it'd take a mile, right? You see? But it's likely that the man would take advantage of the one, right? It's just something like that, see. Okay? And most people would let people be stronger than the truth in some cases, right? So likely there's a statement about what happens in human affairs, but there's always some exceptions usually, right? Okay? And that's why you lack the strength of the syllogism, right? Okay. A man would not always take advantage, you know? He's given that the right, right? Okay. A politician would not always, right? It's just the elected, right? Okay. I told you, you know, some guy in American history there who said, I'd rather be right than president. Uh-huh. And I couldn't remember who his name was, so I was talking to one of the old historians of assumptions. Who said that? He said, probably somebody who didn't have a chance. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you can say it's cynical, right? You see? If you had a chance, you know, you'd rather be president of the right, huh? You see? I mean, a lot of times there's humor in this, right? But still, you know, people will take that as they liked it, right? You see? Now, here's something which is tied to the senses. So you're still fairly close to the senses when you talk about signs, huh? Now, a sign is always defined as St. Augustine defined it, right? It's that which strikes the senses, right? And brings something other than itself. So again, there's enthumas, right? Something in the mind when you see this, right? So if you see somebody coming out of the bar and he's kind of, you know, staggering, right? Right away, you think he's what? Drunk. Drunk, right? You don't see that he's drunk. Staggering, and that's a sign that he is what? Drunk, right? Okay. Now, a man might stumble, though, for other reasons, right? And so, is that a necessary sign that he's being drunk, huh? It could be some other physical conditions, right? My wife works with, you know, brainigen people sometimes, right? And some of these people, you cop things that they're, what? Drunk because they act kind of, you know, dopey, you know? And it's kind of an embarrassing situation, right? Because they're really not at all that, huh? Okay. But you know, you're staggering down. Yeah, you stagger the bed sometimes. You're really tired, right? I always tell a couple stories of one of my students there who had this kind of long, you know, grady hair like that. One day he comes into class and he hears all neatly cut. So, I see you change your hair. I said, well, it's not going to happen to me. He was in some kind of an out-of-go accident, right? He was going to defend himself in court, right? He went down to the courthouse in order to some preliminary thing in one of the things and asked the policeman there, you know, what his hitching was. The policeman saw me plays it on the drug charges or something. So, right away, you know, I mean, this was a sign of the policeman of a disordered life, see? I remember myself at that. I was driving down from Quebec, you know. Here I slept this morning down. And I was driving straight through an eight, nine-hour drive, more or less. And it was late at night, and I'm about five miles over the student, I said, and the state trooper stopped me and just kind of gave me a warning, see? He turned around and looked at me and said, give me a drink. And I imagine, you know, after eight or nine hours, my eyes... A little red, and this guy put a little bit on the speed of it, and his eyes are a little red, right? I said, no, I've got to go down to the back here. How's that? You know, don't, so I'm the point. Yes, sir, yes, sir. I mean, the point is, this is a sign, you see. So, most of the signs with civilization reasons will be signs that are more general than what they take them to be a sign of, right? Okay, and therefore you're going to have that necessity, right? Okay, now, an example here taken from Julius Caesar's, from the play Julius Caesar. Anthony is, what, going to try to convince the crowd, right, that those who assassinated Caesar did so out of envy, right? Rather than out of, what, their claim that Caesar was about to make himself dictator, right? Caesar was so unbathomable. Now, listen to this part of the speech here. But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man. If you read the whole speech, he keeps repeating that phrase, huh? And Brutus is an honorable man, although he's giving reasons and hints that he's not at all honorable. And what figure of speech is that? Irony, yeah. He's saying the contrary of that, right? He hath brought many captors home to Rome, whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. Did this and Caesar seem ambitious? Now, that's an argument there. That's an infamy, right? That's an infamy likelihood, right? Now, what is the likelihood? Is it actually stated there? The likelihood is that men who are ambitious, ambitious to the point that they would make themselves, what, dictator, right? That these men interested in, what, themselves, enriching themselves, not in, what, benefiting their country, right? So, the likelihood is not actually stated, but it's part of the argument. And he would take that as being enthumas, in the mind, right, of his hearers, that they would see that, right? The ambitious man looks after number one, right? Not after his country, right? Okay. Now, the second infamy, when that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept. Now, ambition should be made as soon as stopped, right? Well, there he's stating the likelihood, right? In other words, if a man is so ambitious and he's driving to not only be successful, but to be, what, the dictator of his country, right? To trample upon his country's freedom, right, huh? Is such a man going to be, what? Worried about that. Yeah, he's going to be mild and pitiful and easily moved to tears. I quote the, our own saying, nice guys, finish. But last, right, you know, see? I remember meeting one time, a guy who was with, he was like a reporter, I guess, he was with Mussolini back in the 30s, you know, and they're driving along, you know, Mussolini's car, Mussolini makes me very fast, right? So they're going through these little villages and, you know, and boom, it's like they hit a little kid, right? And, of course, the reporters shocked him around, and he says, don't look back, boom! That's what you expect of Ann, like that, right? You know? You know? Don't look back, right? Get a kid, okay, boom! You know, let's go. You see? So, it's likely that a man who's going to seize power, right, that he's going to be somewhat, what? Ruthless, right, huh? Okay? So this is a second anthem, right? You remember what the third anthem is that he uses? Well, I didn't give it. I said, I don't give it. What? You're phrasing the crown. Yeah, yeah. You already see how the Feast of Luper called, I Christ presented him a crown, right? And he refused it, right? I mean, that's an argument from, what, a sign, right? Because he refused to the crown, right? That's a sign. He's not ambitious, right? I offered the crown three times to him, and he refused it, right? See? You appreciate it, doesn't it, huh? In between the parts of the speech, he has a crown down there, right? You hear what he said? Tis certain he was not ambitious, right? Because he refused the crown, right? That's what they could see, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We saw him. We talked to the crown three times. We talked to the crown three times, right? We talked to the crown three times. We talked to the crown three times. We talked to the crown three times. We talked to the crown three times. We talked to the crown three times. We talked to the crown three times. We talked to the crown three times. But, uh, number three there, of course, he's supposed to be complete, right? Even so, you know, this man's being the kind that, you know, sees the thing, right? So, uh, I was in Shakespeare's play, they're Richard III, right? And they're kind of, he's going to seize the throne, right? And the Buckingham is offering him the throne, which, you know, is refusing, like, people are telling him, you know, he must accept, you know, and, you know, must die, you know, and so. So, as I see it, you know, except the nomination, you know, he's almost comparing himself to Christ compared to Yosemite, you know, like, he's, you know, it's reflected to, not by will, but the people's will be done, that's what I mean, you know. So, I mean, uh, this is a not necessary sign, right, huh? So, refusal of an honor, you could say it's a sign of lack of ambition, but not a necessary sign, right, huh? So, most signs, you know, have to be of that sort, right? Now, sometimes they have a sign, you know, where they go to something universal. Aristotle gives an example of Socrates is a sign that philosophers are, what, just, right? And that's a very weak argument, right, then? Like, St. Clinton is a sign you can't trust your daughter or a president, right? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, So Thomas explains those three elements in the word, laid down, in the context, right? St. Paul has been laid down as an apostle, right? He's been laid down by God, he has a, God has placed him here, right? And he's affirmed this, right, there, in his position, his authority, and he has a certain task now, right? The Lord is in task. In English you see this in some times, in the same phrase, in regard to the law, right? Maybe your mother said something, I'm going to lay down the law now, right? Okay? When you lay down the law, the law doesn't lay itself down, someone lays it down, right? There's a firmness, you say, I'm going to lay down the law, right? And you expect a sort of, what, behavior to follow from what's been laid down, right? See, there's three elements, right? Something lays it down, there's a firmness there, right? The laid down law is a firmness there, by the way. You're not going to be floating around anymore, laying down the law in there, right? Like they see in Washington, D.C. now, they've got these machines that automatically photograph you when you drive through, over at the speed limit, and then you get your nose in the nail. But, you know, eventually we'll come to that around here, too, because, you know, people would, if you do that machine, it's not a photograph, you would take your license plate, and it's automatic, right? I think. And I asked a joke, if you have a machine, whatever it's been there, it turns around and fills the canopy, you throw your car on it. In fact, you did, I suppose, so. It caused accidents, but. But, I mean, this is a firmness, right? You lay down the law, right? There's a firmness there, right? If it wasn't before, and it's also ordered. So, it's speech, in which reason, right, has firmly placed, right, some statements, right, in order to, what, a conclusion, right? Statements that are, what, in a sense, related to a conclusion, right? And then another statement, right, which is not really a part of the syllogism, but a conclusion of it, right, an effect of it, right, is going to follow necessarily, right? Now, this follow necessarily really separates the syllogism from the other three kinds of argument. If I, you know, lay it down, say that the meal at this restaurant was good last week, it doesn't follow necessarily to be good this week. If I lay it down, student is in black. I mean, this student is in black, this student is in black, this student is in black, if every student is in black, if every student is in black, if every student is in black, it doesn't follow necessarily that every student is in black, right? Again, Caesar refused the crown three times. It doesn't follow necessarily, right? It was not a tradition, right? But the syllogism, right, the conclusion, what, follows necessarily, right? And if it follows necessarily, it doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily, what, true, right? Because if the premise is laid down, if even one of them was not necessarily true, then, you know, the conclusion follows necessarily, it isn't necessarily, what, true, right? Can you see the difference, right? Just like in calculated, right? You know, if I multiply the numbers correctly, right, and without making any mistake there in the multiplication, the number that I get is not necessarily the correct number. If one of the numbers that I multiply is only habibu, right? I'm going to be mistaken. Now, it's necessary, as Sheriff Stavro does, to add this last part in the definition of socialism. Because of those laid down, huh? Is that necessary? I often borrow Shakespeare there, you know. This above all to an own self be true, and it must follow as the night of the day. But canst not then be false to the man, right? Let's do it. I know it's not. Does night follow day necessarily? Yes. But is it because of day that night follows? Day is not responsible for night. It's a third day. It's not going around the earth or maybe the earth turning on its axis. There's a cause of day and night and the necessary succession to the other. So something could follow something else necessarily and not be because of it. Night might follow day necessarily if the earth necessarily turns on its axis, right? But it would not be because of day that night follows, right? You see that? So Aristotle wants to bring out by this last part of the definition of socialism that it's because of those statements laid down that the conclusion this other statement follows necessarily. Is it for statements? If the statements follow necessarily would it always be because of those laid down and could you have statements that would follow? Well, I don't know but I mean what you're putting out here simply is the phrase followed necessarily doesn't mean necessarily because of that, right? Okay? You might say learning necessarily follows ignorance, right? Well, it's necessarily perceived by ignorance it's been that way. But the ignorance is not the cause of the learning, right? They are the ignorance in the shapes and the shapes and the shapes this is bringing out the fact that these are in some sense the cause of the thing, right? That's the maker of it, right? The producer. And some of you want to say reverse induction and induction goes in parts of the whole such as in reverse but I think it's more it's also just more like reproduction, right? Well, it's the two dogs producing a third dog, right? Or the two numbers producing a third number, right? Okay. So you can see why this kind of argument is going to have a great importance. If you look at Euclid you know all the arguments in Euclid there are what? Syllogisms, right? Okay. I notice now the word syllogism there comes originally from the Greek word for reckoning or calculating, right? And we point out a couple of likenesses between the two. When you add, subtract, multiply, divide you need at least two numbers to get a third number, right? And likewise in the syllogism you need at least what? Two statements to get a third statement. And then there's a certain what? Rigor in both, right? Okay. But notice neither Aristotle nor the Greeks in general would try to make one art out of these two, right? The art of calculating and the art of what? Reasoning, right? Okay. There's a likeness there. And even the word for syllogism is borrowed from that, right? In English we sometimes do that to say I reckon that's so like in the hillbilly language, right? But we say I figure that's so, right? We're thinking of mathematical figures, you know? Okay. But what does that add up to, right? You know? We're talking about statements, right? And as a child you learn how to add and subtract, multiply and divide more than you learn about the syllogism, right? So there's a certain likeness there. Aristotle never tried to make one art out of the two, right? But the mathematical logicians, they tried to lump these two under what they call deduction. They don't really belong to the same art, right? What's fundamental in the art of calculating is counting, right? Because you have to count before you have any numbers to add, subtract, multiply or divide, right? What's that mean? What's that mean?