The Logic for Grammarian Meddling in Language

I love languages. A string of symbols and a group of rules coming together to convey meaning, is utterly fascinating. So I suppose I'm in a biased place against grammarians who want to standardize English.

Language is intended to convey meaning.
Language should be standardized in order to clearly convey meaning.
-------------------
All language should be the same and logically structured in order convey meaning in the best way.

Which I go onto argue leads to a universal language to the exclusion of all others. I suppose this isn't exactly interpretative charity. And I'm certainly ignoring other arguments!

1)People are generally lazy
2)Some people are not lazy and are creative
3)People that are not lazy are productive
4)Those that are productive deserve reward
---------------------------------------
Therefore, corporations have the right to ignore union contracts and exploit workers.

This argument is supposed to make corporations look bad, but is obviously fallacious. I suppose in a way its a straw person argument, attacking a weaker form of an argument a corporation might promote.

The Logic Against the Emancipatory Project

I picked this argument up somewhere in one of Eric Olin Wright's essays online:

1)Socialists and communists wish to end poverty and class divisions
2)Socialists and communists take over in other countries they impose a statist autocracy, ignoring poverty and creating new class divisions
---------------
3)Therefore, the first premise is false and those goals cannot be achieved.

Valid, maybe the last bit about the goals makes it invalid though. I would argue that the class of 'socialist and communist' is a big issue for soundness. The sort of ideals that are existent in these two (separate) ideologies run totally against what happens in supposedly 'communist' countries. So the class of 'communism and socialism' in the first premise may not be the same as the term used in the second premise.

Note, Really Existing Socialism fits the lexical definition of Fascism extremely well "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (Merriam-Webster)

Ad Hominem Comment

Any one notice that an ad hominem argument often supports the conclusion of the argument before it, as well as ignore it.

"Your a terrible person"
Ad Hom. Response: "Well,your a terrible person too."

Validating Žižek

Thanks for the comment Jon David, I was thinking a different approach:

-The true ideals of Christianity are embodied in the free egalitarian community of believers united by love
-OWS is a free egalitarian community of believers united by love
----------------------------------------
Therefore, OWS embodies the true ideals of Christianity

A is c
B is c
---------
A is B

Well, this is an invalid form, but maybe a step to a valid argument for his underlying intentions.

Žižek at Occupy Wall Street

"They will tell us we are un-American. But when conservative fundamentalists tell you that America is a Christian nation, remember what Christianity is: the Holy Spirit, the free egalitarian community of believers united by love. We here are the Holy Spirit, while on Wall Street they are pagans worshipping false idols." -Slavoj Žižek, Liberty Sq. Plaza New York

I really appreciate the rhetoric of this little bit here but it also contains an argument.

1) Christianity is the Holy Spirit
2) The Holy Spirit is a free egalitarian community of believers united by love
3) Occupy Wall Street is a free egalitarian community of believers united by love
----------------------------------
4) Occupy Wall Street is Christianity/Christian

I needed to insert the conclusion here because he sort of steps over it. Unfortunately his argument is invalid.

C is H
H is E
O is E
-------
O is C

Cats are in the family felidae
All members of the family felidae are mammals
Dogs are mammals
--------------------------------
Dogs are cats

Still a solid piece of rhetoric though:
http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/736-slavoj-zizek-at-occupy-wall-street-we-are-not-dreamers-we-are-the-awakening-from-a-dream-which-is-turning-into-a-nightmare

Diotima's Beauty

We read Plato's Dymposium in art and philosophy. Diotima (Socrates' 'teacher in the art of love') gives a sort of poetic argument about the nature of beauty:

1)Humans love
2)To love is wanting to posses the good forever
3)Humans are mortal
--------------------
Humans cannot achieve the object of love

1)Beauty is a good which last forever (or a long while)
2)Humans cannot achieve the object of love but strive after it
--------------------
In attempting to achieve immortality and union with the good humans create beauty

I feel there's a way to strengthen the inference in the second arguement, any thoughts?

Many Independent Premises

Going through section 1.6 it seems that conclusions are always improved by multiple cogent premises. Would this increase the cogency and strength of an inductive argument? Or would each cogent premise stand on its own as its own argument?

If they are all considered parts of one argument, it looks like a cheap and easy way to increase the cogency of an argument, by decreasing the chances that all the premises will be found untrue.

1 ----> 2

3 ----> 4}--> 7

5 ----> 6

Don't Step on the Grass

Walking to and from Hoosac you have to take the path towards Murdock to get anywhere because of the construction. If your heading towards the campus center, the quickest route is get off the path and walk across the grass. Of course, most grasses cant stand high foot traffic, and I noticed that the grass was being trampled in some areas. This argument followed:

1) I like the appearance of living/well maintained grass in that spot
2) By walking on the grass in that spot I contribute to its killing and disheveling[un-well maintaining?]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore I will should not walk on the grass

Does the inference even work for this one?

Home Economics Letter to the Editor

"During the 20 years I taught home economics in both junior and senior high school, I made it a priority to teach healthy eating habits. My students always prepared dishes that were nutritious and easy for them to cook.

Fresh fruits and vegetables were included in these lessons whenever possible, and we frequently discussed the hazards of including too much salt, sugar and fat in the diet.

These students often returned during their college years to thank me for teaching them these skills.

I was disheartened when home economics was eliminated from the curriculum in many New York school systems.

Most children are no longer taught how to cook at home and therefore do not have the tools to help them make good food choices.

Bringing home economics back to the classroom would be a huge step toward educating our population about the hazards of obesity while teaching them to eat responsibly.

AUDREY MANNERS
Nantucket, Mass., Sept. 6, 2011

(Manners, Audrey. "Bringing Home Ec Back to the Classroom." Letter. 6 Sept. 2011. New York Times. New York: New York Times Company, 2011. Print.)

Argument:
1) Home Economics classes teach students to prepare dishes that are nutritious and easy to cook
2) Home Economics classes teach students about nutritious foods and unhealthy foods
3) With out these classes most students do not know how to cook or make healthy decisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore home economics classes should be instituted to teach children these skills

Introduction

Hello world!

My name is Brian Fitzpatrick. This is my blog for my Philosophy 200 class, Logic and Critical reasoning. So expect to see related posts in the future.

I chose the name 'Down to the Piraeus' because I felt appropriately philosophical referencing Plato's Republic, and maybe implying that this blog is about getting down to business, down to the point.