Originally posted by lucifershammer The answer, from the superior's replies, is yes.
If this claim is true, the the following claim must be true, for the monk's questions are identical in form.
"The answer, from the superior's replies, is no."
If you deduce your claim from the second response, which allows simultaneous prayer and smoking, I, by formal deduction, find that the monk's first response is a lie.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Read the second half of my post.
An analogy from logic: in A => B, if A is true then it follows that B is true. If A is false, however, it does not imply that B is false.
I'm quite familiar with that rule and I find that it has no application here, nor does it have any analogous counterpart in the situation at hand.
The two questions the monk asks are equivalent in form. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that "A and B" and "B and A" are equivalent propositions? May I remind you of this logical tautology: (A and B) implies (B and A). That is the situation at hand.
The monk asserts (A and B) by his second answer, yet denies (B and A) by his first answer. Thus, he has lied.
Originally posted by Coletti How is this related to the fundamentalist?
Any literal fundamentalist ..... as you know there are also secular literal fundamentalists ...... check out this thread .... interesting food for psychologists, logicians and other stand-up comedians ..... 😀 😛
There is an old story told of a young monk who goes to his superior with two questions:
Can I smoke a cigarette while I am praying ?
To which the answer is NO. But he then asks the further question:
Can I pray while I am smoking a cigarette ?
To which the answer has to be YES.
Without encouraging you to smoke, I hope you see the difference.
i agree with Scribs' posts above...i don't think this 'conundrum' poses any threat to the fundamentalist's stance. it could, conceivably, but not in the context presented.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I'm quite familiar with that rule and I find that it has no application here, nor does it have any analogous counterpart in the situation at hand.
The two questions the monk asks are equivalent in form. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that "A and B" and "B and A" are equivalent propositions? May I remind you of this logical tautology: ...[text shortened]... ts (A and B) by his second answer, yet denies (B and A) by his first answer. Thus, he has lied.
The monk does not ask "A and B" - he asks "A while B". The connotations are different.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I'm quite familiar with that rule and I find that it has no application here, nor does it have any analogous counterpart in the situation at hand.
The two questions the monk asks are equivalent in form. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that "A and B" and "B and A" are equivalent propositions? May I remind you of this logical tautology: ...[text shortened]... ts (A and B) by his second answer, yet denies (B and A) by his first answer. Thus, he has lied.
Ivanhoe did not present statements in logical form, so you can not say they are formally identical - you presume they are. The smoking and praying are not describing the same things at the same time - this is clear by the answers given to the questions. So it is not (A and B) vs (B and A), it is (A and B) vs (D and C).
17 May '05 16:392 edits
Conundrum for the literal fundamentalist .....
Back to Top