• m-theory
    908
    Oh, I was just going by the animated show.
    I have never read the comic and did not realize that he was portrayed as being psychologically invulnerable as well in the comic.

    I like the anime and I think it is a fresh take on the super hero motif.
    I probably won't get around to reading the comics though.
    lol
    Reminds me of the walking dead, everyone says the comics are way better, but I still really enjoy the show.


    Yeah that is a dynamic that the animated show does not really touch on in any way that I can see.
    That also sounds like an interesting angle to explore.
  • Agustino
    3k
    It seems you're confusing a propositional logical tautology and a rhetorical tautologyBenkei
    Why does it seem so to you?

    The rest of your comment honestly seems like nonsense to me. I don't even understand what you're trying to say. You're defining a logical tautology to me - which I know very well what it is, it is applied to propositions and it happens when the truth-table of the composed proposition only has true values regardless of the values of the predicates such as below:
    A | ~A | A or ~A
    T | F | T
    F | T | T

    Cool story! What's there to say with this though? What's your point?

    This is not the same as reconstructing "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" as "A therefore A", which you keep doingBenkei
    I never reconstructed a 2 premise argument as A therefore A. A single premise argument COULD be of the form A therefore A though. It could also be of the form A therefore B (which is a subset of A).

    I said a single premise argument is a tautology. And obviously I didn't mean logically a tautology the same way a proposition such as A -> A is a tautology, where it is equivalent to ~A or A. I meant and I've explained this several times before that it is a tautology since it adds nothing to what the premise is already telling us. I could give you some bullshit argument like:

    1. All numbers divisible by 2 are even
    2. Therefore If Socrates is a number and Socrates is divisible by 2, then Socrates is even >:O

    Great story! What do we do with it?

    So tell me, what are these explanations that I will post below?

    Your earlier reply proves exactly what I have said. (1) is a general level statement, and (2) is a more specific instance of (1). (2) is included in (1), and amounts of begging the question.Agustino

    No it's tautologous because you're saying that:
    A
    Therefore if X is subset of A, then X is true

    It's a tautology because A already affirms the truth of X (where X is any potential subset)- the conclusion doesn't add anything to the fact that A, and all its subsets are the case. It doesn't even tell me if X is actually a subset of A in fact. I really have gained no knowledge by knowing the conclusion than I initially had by knowing the premise that A is the case.
    Agustino
  • quine
    5
    All lions are mammals. Therefore, if Leo is a lion, then Leo is a mammal.
  • Benkei
    331
    Therefore if X is subset of A, then X is trueAgustino

    This contains a conditional premise "if x implies A" irrespective of your use of the word "therefore". It's bad grammar and logic. It's not only a conclusion and therefore not a single premise argument but 2. As a consequence, you're reducing a syllogism to a rhetorical tautology.

    But let's ask the audience instead of repeating our steps because quite obviously this is going nowhere. Who here, besides Agustino, thinks I'm wrong and if so where's my mistake? Or are we just talking past each other?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.