Logic Law & Logic Law Language, includes 6 FREE SITES .

Logic Law – Logic’s Laws – the Laws of Logic & Laws of Thought.

Six of the top sites in the world FREE… click on the text links.

HomeLaws of ThoughtLogicLawLanguageRhetoricShakespeareConcordance

FallaciesFraud2000 BooksTreatiseSite-search Insight / InciteALL FREE


The Aristotelian 3 Laws of Thought & what they stated close to their original expression, translated by W. D. Ross. Simplified for easy reference.

or read the annotated Metaphysics specific bookmarks in parts IV 4, 4, & 7 pdf .

See a partial extract just below.

The Aristotelian 3 Laws of Thought & what they stated close to their original expression, translated by W. D. Ross. Simplified for easy reference.

or read the annotated Metaphysics specific bookmarks in parts IV 4, 4, & 7 pdf .

See a partial extract just below.

The 1st Law of Identity.

A thing is identical with itself, at the same time & in the same respect. A is A, A A


The 2nd law of Non-contradiction,

also referred to as the law of contradiction.

A thing cannot be and not be at the same time & in the same respect. ~(A · ~A)


The 3rd Law of Excluded middle.

For any proposition, either the proposition is true or its negation is true. A or ~A, A ^ ~A

Symbols ~ = NOT, · = & or and, ^ = or.

same respect’ may be used in sense: significant aspect/view.’ .


Here follows a brief article on the 3 Laws, 4 Moods & a valid syllogism. The 4 moods treat the distribution of the predicate and show false emphasis in Language. Following this, the 4th Law shall be articulated in simple terms that are similar with the original expressions.



Here is a syllogism, of different form where the main premiss is the 3rd Law, with choice To Be or Not to be, hence IF you BE then you ARE, what you DO.

A principle : Aristotle’s 3rd law of thought – excluded middle;

there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories’

which begs the question:

To be or Not to be, that is the question (Shakespeare)

You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do. (C. G. Jung)

be & are, are from the same verb. The problem of distribution is removed by the 3rd Law.




It is very important to understand the everyday use of same & identical, and their meanings due to numerous ambiguities that can follow from usage in different senses, the Aristotelian & logical sense is unique.

The OED primary definitions are here:


Aristotle’s Metaphysics part 4 specific bookmarks in parts IV 4, 4, & 7 pdf


There are some who, as we said, both themselves assert that it

is possible for the same thing to be and not to be, and say that

people can judge this to be the case. And among others many writers

about nature use this language. But we have now posited that it is

impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be, [~(P ☻ ~P)] and by

this means have shown that this is the most indisputable of all

principles.-Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated,

but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what

things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not,

argues want of education.

Aristotle’s Metaphysics part 7

But on the other hand there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate.[P v ~P] This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is not is said to be or not to be.

Logic Law & Logic Law Language, includes 6 FREE SITES .

Logic Law – Logic’s Laws – the Laws of Logic & Laws of Thought.

Six of the top sites in the world FREE… click on the text links.

HomeLaws of ThoughtLogicLawLanguageRhetoricShakespeareConcordance

FallaciesFraud2000 BooksTreatiseSite-search Insight / InciteALL FREE


The last Site-search tab opens a Google search engine on our sites for your search item.

3 Laws of thought, Aristotle, plus 3 NEW Laws of Thought – new-species derived from practical use in valid arguments. 4 Moods & a valid categorical syllogism.


ARISTOTLE: STUDY pieces, English translations.

METAPHYSICS and CATEGORIES


ARISTOTLE’S main works in English.


30 text files, all downloadable FREE.

All part of the 2000+ FREE books library. With a dissertation on persuasion language used as simular truth, proved false in a Court claim.

Insight or Incite language games sworn for truth!

This section lists these laws & others in their simplest forms leaving the more detailed theories for you to research on the web’s most popular sites. Primary translation W. D, Ross and others. They are taken to be axiomatic & self evident with little or no need for persuasion, and may be considered as a pre-requisite to valid reasoning. Original source Aristotle’s Metaphysics, although the ideas may be traced to earlier philosophers.


The Aristotelian 3 Laws of Thought & what they state.


The 1st Law of Identity.

A thing is identical with itself, at the same time & in the same respect. A is A.


The 2nd law of Non-contradiction, also referred to as the law of contradiction.

A thing cannot be and not be at the same time & in the same respect. ~(A · ~A)


The 3rd Law of Excluded middle.

For any proposition, either the proposition is true or its negation is true. A or ~A, A ^ ~A

Symbols ~ = NOT, · = & or and, ^ = or.

same respect’ may be used in sense: significant aspect/view.’ . Lay comment is below here.






The 4 Moods, from Aristotle.


A: All men are mortal.

E: No man is immortal.

I: Some animals are bipeds.

O: Some animals are not bipeds.


They provide premisses from which valid reasoning follows, categorically.

Most important for its influence on valid expressions of thought is the notion of distribution of the predicate. Take A: All men are mortal.

SubjectMen, predicatemortal, copulaare, distributionAll. The Universal distribution All, like No, leaving some as partial. When the universal distribution is used with a second premiss, the reasoning is said to be valid, and a categorical conclusion follows.


The simple categorical Syllogism.

All men are mortal,

Socrates is a man,

Therefore Socrates is mortal. Therefore symbol =


© 1995-2018 A. H. Winter, B.A. Lit, B.A. Phil. Honorary Lecturer Westminster University.

The 3 added species derived from the above laws & used successfully at court.

These laws combine parts of the above Aristotelian rationale, where their combination has been used at court to ask one simple question, of the Defendant’s testimony, that was unanswerable and ended the claim abruptly, due to its inconsistent contradictory rationale.


4th Law The Law of Difference.

5th Law The Law of Included Middle.

6th Law The Law of Included Context.


The 5th & 6th Laws of thought show, similar to an Aristotelian contradiction, the Counter Factual that results from simulated truth statements. For purity with the original language one may name a Counter Factual as a ContraFaction being a false or misleading representation of a fact, rather than two statements that contradict. The fact (which cannot be disputed) controverts the statement.


The basis of Laws 5 & 6 is that element of shared (some are & some are not) and context is the definition of context being sufficiently narrow as to frame the semantics, and restrict the thought being influenced by relevant parts that DO have a bearing upon meaning. The well known phrase – taken out of context – sums up the criticism of such practices.


Context: OED.4.a. concrete. The whole structure of a connected passage regarded in its bearing upon any of the parts which constitute it; the parts which immediately precede or follow any particular passage or ‘text’ and determine its meaning. (Formerly circumstance; see circumstance n. 1c.)

Note I have deleted the word immediately being more related & restricted to simple textual matter rather than the whole situation. Where textual matter is set out and framed in such a way as to restrict the situation, to simple text omitting the wider context with bearing upon that text, it s highly suspicious and likely to be fraudulent.

The latest court case demonstrates clearly (with parts bearing upon the whole truth extending up to seventeen years) that by suppressing those parts with bearing upon the parts & elements under examination, results in counter factuals & false or misleading representations which are essential to sound natural reason. Choosing immediate context, is a clear suppressio veri, that controverts a sworn statement, where whole truth is the significant part which requires explicit articulation. Judgements reached based upon text/evidence presented – selected – shall be as biased as the agenda & semantic frame in which it is constructed.


The path to deception is significant in crafted ellipses which beg questions, and the disclosure of the mechanism used is the grammatical completeness of a sentence in sworn truth as distinct from situational, or innocent textual ellipses that are interpreted in situations of trust & direct observation.

Where the interlocutor is a well trusted family or friend, the brevity of such ellipted expressions is acceptable, but where gain & loss are involved, then scrutiny of the grammar & logic becomes significant.

Lay comment:


Familiarity with these laws, should be noted for their effect on language, which generally takes one of two forms, namely the literal Indicative fact-mood, or the subjunctive thought-mood: ref §295 H. Sweet here..


Definitions.

same A. adj. I. Not numerically different from an object indicated or implied; identical.

1. With forward reference: Identical with what is indicated in the following context.


Note: Not numerically different. Is an understatement, representing that which a thing is NOT, rather than what it IS, it does NOT define what IS, probably because that is determined by direct observation for each subject matter. Hence same in the Aristotelian, logical or verifiable sense. removes all the ambiguities from common or colloquial usage. So long as one uses or is restricted to the above sense, then the constant same is determined by the origin, which, if known, has fixed coordinates in space-time. Change shall be unique to the origin & species between those fixed coordinates, but sameness will invariably point to the original identity, recorded, known or otherwise. One is left with sameness being anchored in those constants, whatever mutation takes place over time.


Comment: Taking the OED definition of same in its converse, one can add comment to the 4th Law of difference, namely - numerically different. Sameness originates with identity, which is unique, but the same person can also be different at different times, while their original identity never changes.


identical A. adj.1. a. Being the same in identity; the very same, selfsame: said of one thing (or set of things) viewed at different times or in different relations. Often emphasized by same, very.


very 3. In emphatic use, denoting that the person or thing may be so named in the fullest sense of the term, or possesses all the essential qualities of the thing specified.


unique A. adj. 1. Of which there is only one; single, sole, solitary.


For the purposes of precise logical Identity, in the strict Aristotelian sense, same means ONLY identical with ITSELF, and the spatial coordinates confirm this as the only strict usage of the term.


This is not a bar to common usage, merely a caution when circumstance requires certainty, precision or scientific standards.

The logic behind this is to improve the accuracy of usage to better correspond with a strict usage when ambiguities become open to question. The representation being in as FULL agreement / correspondence as possible, with the fact it represents.


Hence where TESTIMONY & VERIFICATION is concerned, the strict identity of the referent is mandatory to ensure culpability is accurately conferred. Usually the situation determines the sense automatically, so that; I have supper every day at 7pm is taken in the looser sense, but which of two lottery winners for £1 million need to be treated uniquely



If John is the same as Jim, (identical twins?) it clearly follows that where James has been shot fatally by one of the named parties, treatment of numerical sameness shall mean it does not matter whether John or Jim is punished for the offence. Similarly & the converse is: car A, is the same as car B, where both are produced with the objective of standardising to ensure the numerical a sameness of sale price makes no difference.

These laws affect the general use of colloquial language, an example follows to demonstrate its general brevity & lack of completeness in all grammatical features, where essential meaning is usually understood, but carefully phrased expressions misdirect that understanding in a way similar to forcing a card upon an unsuspecting spectator. The important thing to remember is that when a verb is used in a sentence, it has at least six elements required for completeness, answering namely: What, When, From, To, How, Why? These can each be qualified for further specificity.


They may be used to persuade an innocent reader to be an accomplice to the deception. Further down, is show an example of how this was done in several Court cases, managed either by the Defendant’s witness testimony, or that put forward by his attorney.


A simple consequence of the Law of Identity upon everyday - colloquial language usage should be axiomatic & self evident for most readers.


The meaning of the word same, in logic, determines that two things are not the same unless its specific sense is qualified with a phrase for example: these two cars are the same: - for the purposes of valuation, driving, testing & usage etcetera.


It should be observed that in every detail they cannot be the same, In the phrase – the same respect – because the two things cannot occupy the same point in space at the same time. The spacial coordinates are sufficient to prove they are not the same in every respect. A more appropriate word would be similar.


The difference results in a semi-figurative expression being used for emphasis, often false, which when verified with the actual facts shall lack agreement. Even for a living thing to be the same as it was a moment ago implies that the digestive system has been frozen in time and the contents have undergone no change whatsoever. That is what one must contemplate when using the language: this is the same as that, or using such terms in testimony for truth. Some situations governs this use strictly.


It’s important to be aware of this distinction if you wish to verify a particular statement and come to terms with the rejection of the colloquial language for such purposes, especially when it comes to using fact mood statements that need to be proven. The simple requirement being that the words in the statement shall correspond with the facts they expressed. Figurative expressions are set aside for this topic.


________________________________________

© 2018 A. H. Winter.



New Species: © 2018 A. H. Winter, B.A. Lit, B.A. Phil. Honorary Lecturer Westminster University.

4. The Law of Difference.

5. The Law of Included middle.

6. The Law of Included context.


The 4th Law of Difference may be expressed axiomatically as follows:


NO thing is the same as any other thing, at the same time, & in the same respect. A is not B


Verification is simple. Setting aside the numerous chemical and structural differences, for further comparisons,

it should be clear to natural reason, that no thing may occupy the same point in space, at the same time and remain the same as each original.


The physical coordinates of thing A, must differ from the physical coordinates of thing B, else fusion would be the most likely result in most cases.


Comment: Taking the OED definition of same, above in its converse, one can add comment to the 4th Law of difference, in essence it shall be at least - numerically different, or NOT numerically the same.


In Aristotle’s language, that which is both universally predicatted of, and present in in some parts but not other parts.


The 5th law of included middle


The 6th law of included context,



These two new laws, have been used in court since 1995 successfully proving false representations in sworn statements for truth. Please bear in mind that truth, in either case ( some are / some are not) cannot exclude one or the other parts of the partial distributions, because predication of part of a class or category shall be controverted by the other parts, and to base truth on only a selected part, shall be refuted by the other parts. Truth cannot leave out that which falsifies itself, hence WHOLE truth, as I stated, in 1995, on the opening page of logiclaw, is a game of falsifying statements by using a single class or category noun, see 1st court example, where “the board was unaware of…) included the suppressed (ellipsis) terms, except for myself the CEO in the representation. “the boarduniversally distributes the predicate, against the partial – some are and some are not – Bear in mind that the term ‘some are’ presuppose the others are not, hence some are not.


Using Aristotle’s language, both said of and present in, when there is a partial distribution, both is separated by either present in or not present in, in either case the predicationsaid ofis negated by either factual presence or absence. Note: this is for partial predication only. If said of and present in occurs frequently then a determination was & is again made as to whether it was accidental or universally distributed, and if the latter, then partial , already presupposed, must have been in error.

This is when direct observation of all elements of context already made the determination, that by one exception, the rule for some are & some are not applied. Some is indeterminate, one exception satisfied the negation of the universal. Re-examine the universal distribution of the syllogism, ‘ALL men are mortal’, and question what was the factual basis that determined there was one or more indeterminate exceptions?


The moment I asked how the defendant could swear a truth, universally, when he was the essential counter factual, not being expressed, the case fell apart, cost estimated at between £3500 & £5000 for a day at court (Barrister, Solicitor & Defendant) . “How is it possible, for the defendant to swear ‘the board was unaware’, when he, the CEO of the board, WAS aware by service of two court orders?” Check this by re-examining Aristotle’s Categories part 7 above, and observe the principle of affirming or denying the predicate, when combined with Aristotle’s 3rd Law of thought.


A similar case W v Npower also fell apart on the similar ellipsis in language, same principle.

Being prepared for website now.



Three more laws
are below, successfully used in Court to prevail in every Rhetorical dispute. They demonstrate how these laws affect everyday language, revealing the misuse of Subjunctive-Mood, colloquial language when presented AS IF fact, but really fiction. See H. Sweet Language $295 on-site or below.



This distinction is so levelled these days that many exchanges are conducted in the literal indicative fact-mood without the normal verification or context to which it belongs. See the failed delivery example below.



The LANGUAGE of Logic. Five simple symbols.

P = any proposition,| ~ = NOT, |= and, |v = or, | = is, or implies 1

Three Laws of Thought, formulated by Aristotle, Metaphysics txt ,

or read the annotated specific bookmarks in parts IV 4, 4, & 7 pdf

These laws presuppose: “At the same time.In the same respect / regard.2

They are self-evident axioms, due to temporal restrictions considered with absolute & fixed specificity.

Add spacial co-ordinates, from Heraclitus’ theory of Flux and apprehend many more relational laws.

P P, ~ (P ● ~ P), P v ~ P



P P

For all a: a = a. P = P

~ (P ● ~ P)

Not: both P and NOT P

P v ~ P

Everything is either P or NOT P





Recall, Einstein: The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.



DO YOU RECOGNISE THIS PROPOSITION & its FORM?

TO BE OR NOT TO BE -



P v ~ P

(To be) or (not to be)

that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous

fortune

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them. Shakespeare.



The abstract forms of the 3 laws are represented in symbols, from spoken form, continue reading to see 3 additional Laws of Thought. Work in Progress.

Learn how the new laws were used in court, to prevail over crafted simular grammatical constructions, where 1 simple question was unanswerable when the suggestio falsi was compared with thesuppressio falsi of crafted ellipsis, as in forcing a card upon the unwary.

New Species: © 2018 A. H. Winter, B.A. Lit, B.A. Phil. Honorary Lecturer Westminster University.






1

2