Hi Rick:
You wrote:
And on more time...
Platt, I ask you:
What rule of logic states that rules must address themselves? Or in
other words.... What rule of logic states that rules cannot have
exceptions? And if rules can have exceptions, why can't they exempt
themselves?
And one more time . . .
Rick, I repeat:
The rule is the Fallacy of Self-Reference which has the logical form of
contradiction, A and not A. Take your rule, “Rules can have exceptions.”
But your rule can’t have an exception because a rule cannot be an
exception to itself. If you argue that your rule can be an exception to
itself, then it’s not a rule. Either way, your rule is self-defeating and
illogical.
As for the difference between a logical argument and a rhetorical one,
in a rhetorical argument you can be illogical (as you’ve illustrated), but
in a logical argument you can’t. Rhetoric (the use of language
persuasively) when grounded in logic (principles of reasoning)
captures the best of both worlds. In this regard, perhaps we can agree
Pirsig is a master.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:04 BST