• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    @andrewk@Nagase or anyone else.
    Premise 1: All living things are things that suffer
    Premise 2: No living things are things that want to suffer

    I drew a Venn diagram and no conclusion seems to follow.

    I even tried some backward thinking, like so:

    Since there's a negative statement (premise 2), the conclusion must be negative.

    There are only two negative categorical statements:

    A) No S are P
    B) Some S are not P

    It can't be B from the Boolean perspective because B's a particular statement and can't be derived from universal statements.

    So, it has to be A: No S are P. The middle term in the premises is = living things. So, the conclusion must be:

    No things that want to suffer are things that suffer. But the Venn diagram doesn't show this conclusion.

    What's wrong? Thanks.
  • Michael
    15.4k
    Wouldn't the "things that don't suffer" and "things that want to suffer" circles overlap? So the "things that want to suffer" and "things that suffer" circles would be fully apart. So the Venn diagram does show your conclusion.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I don't understand your point. Let me give you another example:

    1) All cats are mammals
    2) No cats are dogs

    What is the conclusion?

    Draw a Venn diagram in the standard way and you'll see we can't draw any conclusion from it. Strange??!!
  • Michael
    15.4k
    I suppose the difference with that example is that it doesn't include the tacit premise that only cats are mammals, whereas the first example does include the tacit premise that only living things are things that suffer, being that it doesn't seem to make sense for there to be suffering non-living things.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The answer's still not clear. Can you rephrase it in standard form.
  • Michael
    15.4k
    You've already given the conclusion: No things that want to suffer are things that suffer. I'm simply pointing out that you can see this from a Venn diagram if you draw one. Given that all and only living things suffer, the "living things" and "things that suffer" circles will effectively be the same circle. And given that no living things want to suffer, the "things that want to suffer" circle will be outside the "living things" circle, and so therefore outside the "things that suffer" circle. No things that want to suffer are things that suffer.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.9k

    Syllogisms from Orphan Black (you have to answer true or false):
    Some bags are pockets, no pocket is a pouch.
    Conclusion: All bags are not pouches.

    Some pigs are predators, no predator is a pet.
    Conclusion: Some pigs are not pets.

    Some maggots are flies, no fly is welcome.
    Conclusion: no maggots are welcome.

    Some doctors are fools, all fools are rich.
    Conclusion: Some doctors are rich.

    All mangoes are golden, nothing golden is cheap.
    Conclusion: All mangoes are cheap.

    Then there's Dodgson/Carroll:

    The only animals in this house are cats;
    Every animal is suitable for a pet, that loves to gaze at the moon;
    When I detest an animal, I avoid it;
    No animals are carnivorous, unless they prowl at night;
    No cat fails to kill mice;
    No animals ever take to me, except what are in this house;
    Kangaroos are not suitable for pets;
    None but carnivora kill mice;
    I detest animals that do not take to me;
    Conclusion: Animals, that prowl at night, always love to gaze at the moon.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Some bags are pockets, no pocket is a pouch.
    Conclusion: All bags are not pouches
    Srap Tasmaner

    Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor

    Some pigs are predators, no predator is a pet.
    Conclusion: Some pigs are not pets
    Srap Tasmaner

    Valid

    Some maggots are flies, no fly is welcome.
    Conclusion: no maggots are welcome
    Srap Tasmaner

    Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor

    Some doctors are fools, all fools are rich.
    Conclusion: Some doctors are rich
    Srap Tasmaner

    Valid

    All mangoes are golden, nothing golden is cheap.
    Conclusion: All mangoes are cheap.
    Srap Tasmaner

    Invalid, the conclusion should be negative since one premise is negative.

    What's your point though? Did you have a look at the premises in the OP. It seems we can't draw any conclusion from it. Can you help?
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.9k

    No point. You're on a logic kick, and I think it's cool that the sort of syllogisms you're messing with have recently been featured in a TV show (an excellent TV show). And one needs no reason to quote Lewis Carroll.

    As for the OP, I thought that was settled. Were you expecting something else?

    ADDD: You could conclude with Freud that all living things possess a death drive.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    the sort of syllogisms you're messing with have recently been featured in a TV show (an excellent TV show)Srap Tasmaner

    Sorry to bother you but can you give me a link, if there's one? Thanks.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.9k

    Oh.
    Orphan Black.
    The syllogisms appear in a sort of test some people are given, but not until season 3.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    C. No suffering thing wants to suffer.

    I can't be bothered to draw the diagram, but label your circles 'living things', 'things that suffer', 'things that want to suffer', and shade out what the premises tell you are empty regions.

    Not the most exciting conclusion I've ever seen.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    thanks

    Premise 1: All living things are things that suffer
    Premise 2: No living things are things that want to suffer

    Yes, the conclusion should be, as you said:


    No suffering thing wants to suffer

    But there's an error. The conclusion distributes the class ''things that suffer''.

    However, it's not distributed (it should be) in the premises.

    That's the problem. A more easier example is below (uses the same form):

    All dogs are mammals
    No dogs are cats
    Conclusion???!!!

    No cats are mammals???!!!
  • noAxioms
    1.5k
    Well, No mammals are cats, to follow the exact same form, but the two are the same statement.
    So indeed, these are both examples of conclusions that don't follow from the premises.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Oops, you're quite right, there can be non-living things that want to suffer and do.

    Seems unlikely though! :D
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    You don't see a problem?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Both premises are false.
    That being the case it is not worth persisting.
    A tree is alive. A tree does not suffer. A tree does not want.

    Even for living things that suffer, suffering implies not wanting. So the argument is circular and the venn diagram is not what you think it is.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Ok.

    What about this then:

    Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
    Premise 2: No dogs are cats
    What is the conclusion?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    There is no conclusion here. The premises may be true but nothing further can be draw from them.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Is you handle "Mad Fool" more than just a name?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    There is no conclusion here. The premises may be true but nothing further can be draw from themcharleton

    Why?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
    Premise 2: No dogs are cats

    Because these are just two statements about dogs that are not connected.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    You don't see a problem?TheMadFool

    Only that I was wrong.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Only that I was wrong.unenlightened

    I can't see where the problem is.
  • charleton
    1.2k

    Argument A:
    Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
    Premise 2: No dogs are fish
    We can draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion:

    No fish are mammals
    FALSE. No such conclusion may be made. Premise two only means a fish is not a dog. According to that premise a Fish could be the same as a cow or a pig.

    You are either taking the piss. or are just stupid. Which is it?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Because these are just two statements about dogs that are not connectedcharleton

    I think you have a point. Can you be more specific
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k


    I see something:

    Argument A
    1. All dogs are mammals
    2. No dogs are cats
    So,
    3. Some mammals are not cats

    Argument A is valid from the Aristotelean standpoint given that there's at least 1 dog.

    However, from a Boolean perspective it's invalid. The Boolean perspective doesn't allow us to conclude anything from the premises. I wonder why.
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.