I stood in line behind two logicians the other day ... they were talking about distribution ... they spoke as if they came from another planet and a strange sparse one at that ... they were talking about distribution as if it were universal ...indeed they mentioned only one alternative to being distributed and didn't bother to give it its own name ... calling it merely the undistributed ... by which they meant anything particular ... they said it was easy to tell what they were doing ... just look at the logical form they agreed ... just look at the quantifier ... and when considering the predicate look at the copula ... then they got to the strangest part of all and I must admit so strange I found it intriguing ... you claim more they said by going negative than by being positive ... it may be fine that all S is P but S belongs to P ... P includes S and may do other things as well ... on the side as it were ... and who can tell what that may or may not be ... but when you say no S is P it means no matter how nice P is or tries to be it never ever will do for S ... it doesn't matter what else anywhere it might do or say ... for here wherever and always we know all about S and P and it's no
cf Kreeft, Socratic Logic, pp 103-104
No comments:
Post a Comment