A little thing i found kinda intresting

[buttonkiller]

Gorgias. What say you, Socrates, of black? Is any black, white?
Socrates. No, by Zeus!
Gor. Do you say, then, that no black is white? Soc. None at all.
Gor. But is everything either black or non-black? Soc. Of course.
Gor. And everything either white or non-white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. And everything either rough or smooth? Soc. Yes.
Gor. And everything either real or unreal? Soc. Oh, bother! yes.
Gor. Do you say, then, that all black is either rough black or smooth black? Soc. Yes.
Gor. And that all white is either real white or unreal white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. And yet is no black, white? Soc. None at all.
Gor. Nor no white, black? Soc. By no means.
Gor. What? Is no smooth black, white? Soc. No; you cannot prove that, Gorgias.
Gor. Nor no rough black, white? Soc. Neither.
Gor. Nor no real white, black? Soc. No.
Gor. Nor no unreal white, black? Soc. No, I say. No white at all is black.
Gor. What if black is smooth, is it not white? Soc. Not in the least.
Gor. And if the last is false, is the first false? Soc. It follows.
Gor. If, then, black is white, does it follow, that black is not smooth? Soc. It does.
Gor. Black-white is not smooth? Soc. What do you mean?
Gor. Can any dead man speak? Soc. No, indeed.
Gor. And is any speaking man dead? Soc. I say, no.
Gor. And is any good king tyrannical? Soc. No.
Gor. And is any tyrannical king good? Soc. I just said no.
Gor. And you said, too, that no rough black is white, did you not? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Then, is any black-white, rough? Soc. No.
Gor. And is any unreal black, white? Soc. No.
Gor. Then, is any black-white unreal? Soc. No.
Gor. No black-white is rough? Soc. None.
Gor. All black-white, then, is non-rough? Soc. Yes.
Gor. And all black-white, non-unreal? Soc. Yes.
Gor. All black-white is then smooth? Soc. Yes.
Gor. And all real? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Some smooth, then, is black-white? Soc. Of course.
Gor. And some real is black-white? Soc. So it seems.
Gor. Some black-white smooth is black-white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Some black smooth is black-white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Some black smooth is white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Some black real is black-white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Some black real is white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Some real black is white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. And some smooth black is white? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Then, some black is white? Soc. I think so myself.

The principle of the reductio ad absurdum also occasions deceptions in another way, owing to the fact that we have many words, such as can, may, must, etc., which imply more or less vaguely an otherwise unexpressed condition, so that these propositions are in fact hypotheticals. Accordingly, if the unexpressed condition is some state of things which does not actually come to pass, the two propositions may appear to be contrary to one another. Thus, the moralist says, "You ought to do this, and you can do it." This "You can do it" is principally hortatory in its force: so far as it is a statement of fact, it means merely, "If you try, you will do it." Now, if the act is an outward one and the act is not performed, the scientific man, in view of the fact that every event in the physical world depends exclusively on physical antecedents, says that in this case the laws of nature prevented the thing from being done, and that therefore, "Even if you had tried, you would not have done it." Yet the reproachful conscience still says you might have done it; that is, that "If you had tried, you would have done it." This is called the paradox of freedom and fate; and it is usually supposed that one of these propositions must be true and the other false. But since, in fact, you have not tried, there is no reason why the supposition that you have tried should not be reduced to an absurdity. In the same way, if you had tried and had performed the action, the conscience might say, "If you had not tried, you would not have done it"; while the understanding would say, "Even if you had not tried, you would have done it." These propositions are perfectly consistent, and only serve to reduce the supposition that you did not try to an absurdity.

i found this while browsing on the internet i dont quite understand it. but i do understand the end tell me what you think

[Aedak]

It's a sophism...

Just curious, do you always surf the web and post on forums when you find things you don't understand? :shock:

This deals with the law of contradiction.. it's a little complex, and unless you are taking a college level philosophy course I'm pretty sure you would have a difficult time understand the concepts regarding this subject.

[alainbryden]

The series of logic fails here:

Gor. No black-white is rough? Soc. None.
Gor. All black-white, then, is non-rough? Soc. Yes.

The answer is not yes to the second statement, because the existance of black-white is exclusive in the first statement and inclusive in the second statement, so you cannot say that one being false results in the other being true. The presumption of black-white being non-existant still stands, so the answer to the second question is No. Try again Gorgias.

[buttonkiller]

im a very curious person so yes i do surf the web and find things i dont know.

[Cenright]

There were a few things in that line that were messed up, but that is the point, to throw someone off, yet not have them see where. Or better yet, feel there was no break in logic.

[alainbryden]

eh there are logic breaks.

I like the latest cube vid cen

[Fusion4]

The answer is not yes to the second statement, because the existance of black-white is exclusive in the first statement and inclusive in the second statement, so you cannot say that one being false results in the other being true. The presumption of black-white being non-existant still stands, so the answer to the second question is No. Try again Gorgias.

actually i dont think that there is anything wrong with the logic or with the statement, its sort of like a math problem, you must first assume something in order to prove something (never quite liked that idea, but it makes a bit of sense. you prove it exists by first assuming it does, which in itself presents a problem, but if you dont notice it, well then you dont notice it and you get all confused and head-explodey hehe.

[alainbryden]

No, there is a logic proplem in that statement I pointed out because it assumes that if a concept is not one thing, it is necessarily another thing. One cannot do this, it is a logical fallacy. It was respected throughout the rest of the argument except at that point.

[User6773]

Logic fails here:

Gor. And you said, too, that no rough black is white, did you not? Soc. Yes.
Gor. Then, is any black-white, rough? Soc. No.

What is "black-white"? This hasn't been established, and Socrates has already established that it doesn't exist.

Also, I have actually read the Socratic Dialogues, and that isn't in there. Someone made it up, and they did a bad job of imitating Socrates' style (he never gets angry or irritated during an argument, and quickly provides counterarguments to show where his opponent is wrong.)

[buttonkiller]

aedak you changed your avatar!!!!

[alainbryden]

buttonkiller, if I were a mod that would be a warning. Read the rules.

[blahblah18]

haha, having learned of the man in both philosophy and classics, I'd say you shoudl laern more about said The Man, BK... the logic arguments people are making in case you don't grasp them are the differences between contrapositive statements and converse statements, where a contrapositive statement yields a truth such as a-->b = ~b-->~a but a-->b != b-->a (a implies b = not a implies not b, but a implies b does not mean b implies a) e.g I can see because my eyes are open doesn't yield My eyes are open because I can see, but it does yield I can't see because my eyes aren't open...
The more important pasrt though is the Socratic method, which isn't even entirely used here, but its the idea that you let one person do all the talking and let them confoudn themselves... Go read excerpt's of chapter 1 in Plato's Republic to truly see the Socratic method at work, and while you're at it, just read the whole thing, its amazing

[VegetaRobGT]

Socrates was a smart man, this conversation is highly contradictional and vague... what purpose does it serve?

[blahblah18]

wow... *cries*
I mean... just... wow

[Tasselfoot]

you sir are quite retarded. enjoy being flamed.

ps - lock'd.