Why does it seem so to you?It seems you're confusing a propositional logical tautology and a rhetorical tautology — Benkei
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).This is not the same as reconstructing "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" as "A therefore A", which you keep doing — Benkei
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
Therefore if X is subset of A, then X is true — Agustino
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.