I wanted to add something quickly.

Classical logic does indeed treat ∃x(x = x) as a logical truth. Likewise, so is ∃x(x = c). However, if ‘c’ is some sort of truncated definite description, as Russell believed, so it would be read as "the x such that...", then it is not a truth of logic, because it might fail to denote. Thus, that symbolization might not always be a truth of logic, and indeed you will see many philosophers use or propose it to signify singular existentials, Quine was no different:

“But for those who do not share his {Russell’s] view on proper names, the restriction [the restriction of applying existence as a predicate to just generalized existentials] could be overcome by adopting Quine's proposal that ‘Socrates exists’ be reparsed as ‘(∃x)(x = Socrates)’.” (See the Miller article)


Of course I neither meant to use ‘c’ as a definite description nor do I follow Quine. I use it simply to refer to Craig. The point is just that someone could use it in such a way without it being a truth of logic, contra Vaz.

I find it useful since it does the work that I need it to do in that instance without committing me to definite descriptions. It is my rejection of definite descriptions that also forces me to reject Vaz’s proposal to treat a singular existential statement such as ‘Craig is’ as this (Ex)Cx. If Vaz wants to treat these statements as philosophically neutral, then he will meet resistance, since the very project of classical logic in philosophy is to regiment or even replace natural language. Thus, they say, it cannot be ignored.

That said, my rejection is not a sincere and dedicated rejection, since I oscillate between the two without much thought when I do philosophy. I note the difference only when they matter to the subject at hand. Unlike Frege and Leibniz, or Russell, or Quine, I see classical logic as a failure in its project to capture the logic of natural language. It is a useful tool sometimes, and that's all the stock I put in it.

If there is some profound ignorance in this, ok. But I can cite two articles in the Stanford that use the same formalization. I can also cite early Frege and even Quine. I'm in good company.

Mick wrote:If there is some profound ignorance in this, ok. But I can cite two articles in the Stanford that use the same formalization. I can also cite early Frege and even Quine. I'm in good company.

Anyone using those formalisations non-tautologously is using a non-classical logic. I have been explicit to mention logics in my posts, pointing out that your formalisation works in free-logic. If you can find sloppy usages by early Frege and Quine, I'll suggest it was because they didn't have the modern distinctions.

This isn't up for debate Mick. It all boils down to very precise and rigorous definitions in the appropriate formalisms, not the bickerings of philosophers doing proto-logic. Classical predicate logic now has a solid definition, which for the last several posts, you seem to have been blithely unaware of by making elementary formalisation errors. If you can't admit that you fucked up, it will only compound your continuing fail.

VazScep wrote:

Mick wrote:If there is some profound ignorance in this, ok. But I can cite two articles in the Stanford that use the same formalization. I can also cite early Frege and even Quine. I'm in good company.

Anyone using those formalisations non-tautologously is using a non-classical logic. I have been explicit to mention logics in my posts, pointing out that your formalisation works in free-logic. If you can find sloppy usages by early Frege and Quine, I'll suggest it was because they didn't have the modern distinctions.

This isn't up for debate Mick. It all boils down to very precise and rigorous definitions in the appropriate formalisms, not the bickerings of philosophers doing proto-logic. Classical predicate logic now has a solid definition, which for the last several posts, you seem to have been blithely unaware of by making elementary formalisation errors. If you can't admit that you fucked up, it will only compound your continuing fail.

Quine is a recent thinker, you're aware of that, right? Perhaps you're looking at this from a strictly logician point of view, ignoring the larger philosophical project to try reconcile language and logic. Maybe not. I see no harm in treating a name letter as a definite description, say. If it serves a purpose, great.

Stamp you feet all you want.

Mick wrote:Quine is a recent thinker, you're aware of that, right? Perhaps you're looking at this from a strictly logician point of view, ignoring the larger philosophical project to try reconcile language and logic.

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Interpretation! Points of view!

Maybe not. I see no harm in treating a name letter as a definite description, say. If it serves a purpose, great.

Make it up as you go along, sure. Who am I to spoil your fun? At least I know in future not to take you seriously.

I'll "defend" Mick here inasmuch as this particular formalisation issue has precisely nothing to do with his continuing fail. The fail is elsewhere, and massive. This difference on how to formalise "Craig is a mammal" is irrelevant, and in the scheme of things, tiny.

For fuck's sake it's not even from a formalisation of the argument about propositions that this thread is about, but a formalisation of an argument from a different thread, which Mick brought here either by accident, or as a distraction. In either case, it's off-topic here. Take it up in the Krauss' Embarrassing Fail thread if you feel the need to continue it. It will be just as pointlessly pedantic there, but at least an argument could be made for it being on-topic.

OlivierK wrote:I'll "defend" Mick here inasmuch as this particular formalisation issue has precisely nothing to do with his continuing fail.

It was my derail. See here:

VazScep wrote:Right now, you are sucking at logic, as you are in the other thread when you write things like Ex(x=c) as a premise, when it is a logical truth. You presumably are getting muddled up with free logic.

Formal logic is an easy tool to sledgehammer the unwary into submission. It's esoteric, dense, difficult for laypeople to parse, full of subtleties, and comes with a vocabulary which allows insubstantial people to sound profound. At the same time, when done correctly, it's worth paying attention to, so it's tempting to give those who spout it the benefit of the doubt, as you would anyone with technical expertise. My derail in this thread has been about pointing out that Mick has none of this expertise. If he tries to do logic, you can safely assume he's doing it wrong.

I'll stand by the derail, which I brought in when Mick tried to put Cito in a bind by wibbling some crap about implications.

VazScep wrote:My derail in this thread has been about pointing out that Mick has none of this expertise. If he tries to do logic, you can safely assume he's doing it wrong.

I feel no need for such an assumption; in any case Mick's wrongness in logic is often of the visible-from-space variety, and I think you do him too much credit by questioning his credentials based on a trivial mistake made elsewhere.