This sheds some much needed light on translating categorical propositions.
@KimberlyHeil-wp6fc4 жыл бұрын
This has been well worth a couple of hours of my Thursday evening. Thank you for your clear and straightforward explanation of Aristotelian syllogistic logic! I had classes in informal and symbolic logic but have only picked this stuff up piece-meal as I've studied ancient and medieval philosophy, so the systematic approach was helpful in solidifying things (and identifying technical terms that bypassed me previously).
@ALittleBitofPhilosophy4 жыл бұрын
You're very welcome!
@SanaKhan-zd3rp3 жыл бұрын
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Is this lecture is "Uniform Translation"? I'm trying to search Uniform Translation, but I couldn't find... Kindly help me.
@daringdrifter44393 ай бұрын
❤
@nicholasdepaola37404 жыл бұрын
20 seconds in and i already know this is gonna be good.
@ndateelelahainima97844 ай бұрын
This was clear and easy to understand. Thank you loads. Namibia
@TheRealGinaCharlesАй бұрын
Sir, Thank you. My professor is the worst. You have me thinking I am smart again.
@benzetang8335 Жыл бұрын
I feel quite confused seeing the example "All that glitters is not gold" translated to "Some S are not P". It should be "No S are P" right? If it's "Some S are not P", the phrase should be "Things that glitters is not all gold".
@dmsexton888 Жыл бұрын
It might help to begin by rephrasing the original sentence to capture its true meaning. "No thing that is gold is a thing that glitters" doesn't sound right. That's like saying "Gold doesn't glitter." "No thing that glitters is gold" also doesn't sound right. Again, that would be saying "Gold doesn't glitter." The sentence is actually saying "There are glittery things. Some, but not all, of those glittery things may be gold, but there are also other things that glitter that are not gold." The "other things that glitter that are not gold" are the "Some things that glitter are not things that are gold" example in the video, rephrased as "Some S are not P." Does that make sense?