[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 119 KB, 706x533, 1383073523192.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224635 No.4224635[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>studying philosophy even once

>> No.4224638

wow I love what she's done with her hair

>> No.4224647

dat last sentence tho

>> No.4224649

>>4224635
cherry picking

>> No.4224657

http://zrperry.com/blog/about/

>> No.4224660

>she
>has a beard

Is this some kind of elaborate deconstruction of gender or are we just being trolled?

>> No.4224662

>>4224635
>

>> No.4224664

I agree, philosophy of science is a very tired field.

>> No.4224667

>>4224660
He is just being a retard.

It's like this fuckers need to feel excluded.

>> No.4224673

>>4224635
Is that a man with tits or a bearded lady?

And yes, I'm aware the bio says 'she', but I don't trust a philosophy grad to correctly identify their own gender

>> No.4224689

>>4224673
it's zee man, jesus show some sensitivity

>> No.4224693

>>4224657

>I’m writing a dissertation on the metaphysics of quantity and I often have trouble determining if I’m writing metaphysics-y philosophy of science or phil-science-y metaphysics.

This idiot right here is the problem with academia. They've been reduced to a bunch of ineffectual circle-jerkers and they couldn't be more pleased about it.

>> No.4224697

>>4224673
>And yes, I'm aware the bio says 'she', but I don't trust a philosophy grad to correctly identify their own gender

i enjoyed that very much

>> No.4224702

>>4224693
>Metaphysics of quantity

Guess where she is going with pseud bullshit.
Protip: Quantification is at the center in all forms of identification

>> No.4224709

>>4224635
GRADUATE DEGREE IN TROLLING HERE I COME NYU

>> No.4224714

This makes me not want to go to NYU.

>> No.4224716

>>4224702
>Quantification is at the center in all forms of identification

So how many grains of sand make a heap?

>> No.4224727

>>4224714
avoid the humanities, it'll be fine.

Also, have you considered pricing a move to europe for your 4 years?
My college in Ireland costs €7.5k/year, €300/mo rent, and you could eat for a week on €20 easily

>> No.4224728

>>4224716
Quantum Mechanics makes that answer irrelevant.

>> No.4224739

>>4224728
How? Be as specific as possible.

>> No.4224741

>>4224716
A lot of them.

>>4224673
Subjectivity makes me doubt of formal logic.
On one hand, I suck at formal logic; on the other hand, common sense is the only thing keeping me from doing/thinking retarded shit.

Then again, a lot of retarded shit with total disregard of reality comes straight out of philosophy.

>> No.4224743

>>4224635
>the status of fictional truth

Shit like this makes me hate academia.

>> No.4224744

>>4224728
The point is that there is no quantifiable answer. Your misunderstanding of quantum mechanics makes the answer irrelevant to you alone.

>> No.4224749
File: 56 KB, 864x876, WHO ARE YOU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224749

Is it better than a film degree?

>> No.4224752

The funny thing is she is probably more intelligent than all you faggots

>> No.4224754

>>4224752
>defines himself as a woman
>is just a guy who grew tits
zeeman pls

>> No.4224759

>>4224741
formal logic is pretty based, as long as you have the relevant points with which to make the logical statement.
At worst you'll end up with a solution that works but is sub-optimal, a fair bit better than any alternative method.
Only real problem is that humans are not normally intuitive to logic without training.

>> No.4224764

>>4224749
>film degree
might as well have a degree in harry potter.

It is a little better, but you're fucked in both fields unless nepotism or double-plus talent

>> No.4224765

>>4224759
>Only real problem is that humans are not normally intuitive to logic without training.

I thought our brains could be reduced to logic.

>> No.4224771

>>4224764

>you're fucked unless double-plus talent

The way it fucking should be.

>> No.4224773

>>4224765
Lets put it this way

>When it rains the road gets wet.
>The road is wet.
>Is it raining?

most people do get this wrong the first time around.

>> No.4224776

>>4224765
no, they can be reduced to electricity and that's just an emanation of Will

>> No.4224777

>>4224764

I would disagree and call you an ignorant swine but film programmes seem to be overwhelmingly easy. I don't understand why they aren't more rigorous, taking into account the social/political situations of the day and looking at film as a historical process as much as an artistic one. Then again most students don't seem to care much for films beyond their comfort zone either.

>> No.4224780

>a university in New York has a teacher who is transgender
>therefore you shouldn't study philosophy, ever
Excellent logic, OP. You could use some philsophy classes

>> No.4224782

>>4224773
It's always raining

>> No.4224783

>>4224771
absolutely, this is why STEM degrees are so much more valuable. Even a mid-range CS grad has use as a codemonkey, a mid-range philosophy grad wouldn't find work as a children's librarian

>> No.4224778

>>4224773
That's because of the order of it. If it was

>The road is wet.
>When it rains the road gets wet.
>Is it raining?

Easier, no?

>> No.4224787

>>4224773
Better is a famous example, most law students fail this:

>Some negroes are famous athletes
>Some famous athletes are national heroes
>Therefore some negroes are national heroes

>> No.4224788

>>4224714
move to belgium, any uni 700euro a year +monthly rent

>> No.4224789

>>4224787
False.

Am I right?

>> No.4224790

>>4224739
Well it's essentially a extreme simplification of the quantum state right? Since quantum mechanics allows for quantum particles to exist in several states, negative or positive, and pop in and out of existence, there is really never a fixed quantative measurement right? So this is what this she is trying to do, argue that the transfluence of gender through drawing a direct argument from quantum mechanics.

And no I'm not gonna bother to be as specific as possible. This is 4chan.

>> No.4224791

>>4224782
Oh, I see a fellow Irishman.

>>4224778
Reordering is a very useful part of formal logic.
What's your answer though? if you can, get an answer from an unsuspecting person.

>> No.4224793

Does anyone else not care what people do with their bodies?

>> No.4224797

>>4224727
>most universities in Poland are free, the ones that aren't cost around 500 to 1000 eur per semester
>a single room in a nice flat is 100 to 300 eur
>cheapest food in european union
Why haven't you invested in eastern europe?

>> No.4224799

>>4224793
If xi wants to look like that, I'm okay with it.

>> No.4224800

>>4224791
>Oh, I see a fellow Irishman.
Well, we've both already won this conversation.

>> No.4224801

>>4224783
>muh STEM only jobs

>> No.4224802

>>4224787

False. There's no necessary link between those negroes who are national heroes and those who are famous athletes.

>> No.4224803

>>4224727
>>4224788
Why do guys want me to move to Europe so bad?

>> No.4224804

>>4224790
here...

sorry for transfluence , thats not a word

>> No.4224806

>>4224789
>>4224802
yes

>> No.4224807

>>4224793

>I spend my nights docking cocks with my boyfriend

>> No.4224809

>>4224783
i'm glad i don't live in America, country of anti-intellectuals

>> No.4224810

>>4224780
>has no formal education about science
>philosophy is based on science and QM ect
>Stuff PHD physicists get jumbled on
Thats why, there is nothing worse than hearing a philosophy major talk about science.
>hey I read this book about QM and now I know the meaning of life
>dosnt matter if it takes years to master this subject I know it all despite having no math in my theory

>> No.4224811

>>4224778
I've never taken formal logic, so I can be the dumbass who gets it wrong here. But the obvious answer is "not necessarily" unless formal logic doesn't take reality into account. Because, in reality, the road will still be wet after it rains, but I don't know if that counts in formal logic.

>> No.4224813

>>4224803
see>>4224809

>> No.4224812

>>4224787
I've honestly never seen that one. It's probably an American thing.

the third statement is baseless because the intersection of 'negro' and 'famous athletes' doesn't necessarily intersect with the intersection of 'famous athlete' and 'national hero'

>> No.4224815

stoped reading after
>metaphysics

>> No.4224816

>>4224810
is this a strawman or are we talking about that Zee guy in the OP? He has a minor in math

>> No.4224817

>>4224803
Same level of education.
Hell of a lot cheaper.
Better and simpler accommodation.
A lot more industry involved in the degree.

>> No.4224818

>>4224810
>Logical positivism
Fuck off Bertie, Popper did for you before Kuhn did for Popper.

>> No.4224819

>>4224815
pleb

>> No.4224823

>>4224819
>2013
>thinks metaphysics are real
no u m8

>> No.4224821

>>4224803
we need as many white immigrants as possible to diffuse the sword of islam.

>> No.4224822

>>4224815
2deep4u

>> No.4224826

>>4224812
it was a famous US experiment in the 50s
another example was

>Some negroes are sexual offenders
>Some sexual offenders have syphillis
>Therefore some negroes have syphillis

Which most law students stated as 'correct', it showed how certain prejudices conflicted with actual logic

>> No.4224828

>>4224821
*defuse

>> No.4224832

>>4224823
define 'real'

oh shit were doing metaphysics now

retard

>> No.4224834

>>4224780
It's not that he is transgender what is a deterrent to study philosophy; it's that he is pants on head retarded and he, as a philosophy teacher, is supposed to be good at logic to teach philosophy.

It's like on South America where you have to dodge commies and terrorists if you want a decent education.

>> No.4224841

>>4224816
In general philosophy majors assume to know more about science than science majors and all their information comes from glossing over a few books and youtube.
>minor in maths
Which is pretty much nothing, that's barely more than high school knowledge, I mean honestly how can you base all your philosophy on science without spending years studying the subject?
May as well majored in STEM and done philosophy in his spare time.

>> No.4224842

>>4224826
>it showed how certain prejudices conflicted with actual logic

This wouldn't necessarily show that unless they controlled with other races and the people responding somehow gave different answers not noticing the logical contradiction.

>> No.4224839

>>4224823
>2013
>thinks
>real
>superstitions of authenticity
no, anon, you are doing so much wrong. be quiet and allow baudrillard into your heart

>> No.4224840

>>4224816
>minor in math
>quantum mechanics

okay

>> No.4224844

>>4224714

Considering the countless stories of them coddling celebrities, I don't see how anyone can have an ounce of respect for NYU.

>> No.4224848

>>4224811
>not necessarily
yep.

also, there could have been a flood, or someone could have broken the fire hydrant, or something else might have happened.

>> No.4224850

>>4224832
>>4224839
The most accurate definition of "real" would be the burgers you are going to be flipping, my dear patrish metaphysican intelectuals.

>> No.4224853

>>4224842
they did, see >>4224787
most replied 'false'

>> No.4224855

>>4224826
am I missing something here?
>some A is some B
>some B is some C
>therefore some A is some C
how is this not correct?

>> No.4224857

>>4224828
I want the sword to be less concentrated, I suppose that would also make it harmless, but I meant what I typed.

>> No.4224864

>>4224850
>yfw I live in a yurofag socialist capitalism utopia which pays me to not flip burgers at my level of education
post it I want to rate the tears

>> No.4224862

Wow, what a lovely lady. The kind of girl you can bring home to mom and dad.

>> No.4224867
File: 20 KB, 469x328, test.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224867

>>4224773
Not necessarily, since the road could be wet for some other reason; e.g., someone might have pissed on it.

This isn't a very good example of why we suck at logical inferences. Or, perhaps, it's because I'm too familiar with Modus Tollens and Semantics.

Try (the rest of you) the task I attached in the pic. Post results and I'll post a concluding image with the correct answer.

>> No.4224868

>>4224855
It is true, but their white guilt, political correctness and whatever else makes them say it's not. Really pitful.

>> No.4224870

>>4224855

I considered that it's a question of semantics. 'Therefore some...' implies there is a causal link between A and C whereas there only may be a link which connects A, B and C. It's not definite that there is.

>> No.4224872

>>4224855
>>4224868

because all negroes could have used condoms in the process or something, it doesn't necessarily mean they all carry syphillis

are you retarded? these are entry-level aristotelean syllogisms

>> No.4224873

>>4224867
Also, whoever cheats by googling the correct answer will be a faggot a priori.

>> No.4224875

>>4224867
shit anon, i know this one. if you have other puzzles much obliged

>> No.4224874

>>4224867
E

>> No.4224876

>4224872
It doesn't say ALL of them. It says some. Fuck off back to tumblr you shitter.

>> No.4224878

>>4224841
these are all baseless assumptions you probably invented yourself to feel superior

science isn't a super hard thing you can only talk about when you studied it for years. philosophy of science has been influencing science for years (see: Putnam)

without philosophy, science wouldn't exist anyway

>> No.4224879
File: 18 KB, 800x600, edgeworth.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224879

>>4224855
does it look correct to you?

>> No.4224880

>>4224867
Flip 4.

I'm retarded, sorry.

>> No.4224881

>>4224874 here. E and 7

>> No.4224882

>>4224867
whichever card

>> No.4224884

>>4224870
what causal link? there is an intersection ("some") of A, B and C.

>>4224872
some != all
if the conclusion had been
>all A is C
then the sillogism would have been wrong

>> No.4224887

>>4224884
nope, you're wrong see >>4224879

>> No.4224889

>>4224867
You'd have to flip at least E or 4, because you know it's a vowel. E or 4 to verify.

>> No.4224890

>>4224867

My assumption is that you need to turn all 4 cards if you are trying to deduce the validity of statement S.

>> No.4224891

>>4224867
the fact that you know what modus tollens is means you're already in the top 5% worldwide in terms of logic skill

>> No.4224894

>>4224879
Let A = {1, 2, 7}
Let B = {2, 5, 9}
Let C = {9, 10, 11}

Therefore, A intersects B, B intersects C, but A does not intersect C.

>> No.4224895
File: 88 KB, 504x1093, answers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224895

Here is the correct answer.

>>4224874
>>4224880
>>4224882
Got it wrong, while

>>4224881
...managed to get it right. What made you to change your mind?

>> No.4224896
File: 18 KB, 559x556, 1359481499317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224896

>people claiming you shouldn't study philosophy when they can't even get entry-level syllogisms right
fucking STEMs and their silliness

>> No.4224901

>>4224867
After you've got enough responses are you going to post the alcohol one?

>> No.4224902

>>4224887
the image doesn't apply in this case
the original statement used the word "some" in the conclusion, not "all"

>> No.4224904

>>4224889
Not the guy who originally posted (I'm team E and 7). Whatever is on the back of 4 is irrelevant because it doesn't say that all even numbers are attached to vowels. 7 however can disprove the statement if it's attached to a vowel.

>> No.4224906

>>4224901
I'm unaware of the alcohol one; but I can post the one with the feminist Linda.

>> No.4224909

>>4224895
But this is bullshit.
You don't need to check 7.

>> No.4224913

>>4224902

Dude >>4224894

At some point I have to think you are just a shitty troll.

>> No.4224919

>>4224913
At some point I have to think that you're just retarded.
>philosophy majors

>> No.4224920

>>4224895
>managed to get it right. What made you to change your mind?

I read the directions too fast and thought it said to pick only one card. After submitting I thought that maybe it was a trick question, but then I re-read it and knew to correct myself.

Reading directions and submitting too fast is the story of every A- and B+ in my life.

>> No.4224921

>>4224902
alright bear with me here

some penguins are black and white
some tv shows are black and white
therefore some tv shows are penguins

you feel me here?

>> No.4224923

>>4224919

confirmed for shit

>> No.4224924

>>4224919
i hope you're trolling otherwise it's really embarrassing

>> No.4224927
File: 24 KB, 728x735, mengo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224927

>>4224878
>science isn't a super hard thing you can only talk about when you studied it for years.
True but to talk about it on a good level you have to. Science isn't something that can be reasoned with, look at QM and SST, there is no possible way to understand these without years of study.
It's not a case of feeling superior, its the way it is.

Look at pic related, that's not to complicated but regardless without studying it you won't have a fucking clue whats going on.
So yeah sure you don't have to have a PHD to talk about science but to actual have a good understanding and actually make assumptions in regards to science you need to know this stuff. Deny it all you want, high level science is fucking pain painstakingly hard and most people cannot hack it and instead skip it to make stupid theorys they have no idea about.

Imagine if someone just read the back of a book then based all his theorys on the book, its the exact same thing.

>without philosophy, science wouldn't exist anyway
Yeah but what relevence does that really have, I am not saying philosphy is pointless I am just saying without at least an MSc in the subject and conversation you have will have no grounds and will be based off simplistic science like stupid shit like what the beep down the rabbit hole.

>> No.4224928

>>4224867
An implication is false if and only if the antecedent is true while the consequent is false. Therefore, you have to turn over E and 7 to check S.

>> No.4224929

>>4224921
>some A are B
>some C are B
this is a completly different case

>> No.4224930

>>4224909
See >>4224904

>> No.4224931

>>4224913
I'm not a troll

>>4224921
THAT'S NOT THE SAME YOU RETARD

some penguins are black and white
some black and white things are tv shows
therefore some penguins are tv shows
---
this is logically correct, despite the absurd conclusion; and so is the original problem

>> No.4224932

>>4224927
>inb4 buttmad ez mode degrees get flustered

>> No.4224933

>>4224904
>Whatever is on the back of 4 is irrelevant because it doesn't say that all even numbers are attached to vowels.
You can't have one and the other. If one side is a vowel than the other side either is or is not an even number. There are only two sides. If a vowel is attached to an even number, and S is true, than even numbers must be attached to vowels as well.

If I flip E and S is true, then I flip 4. If S is still true than S is true because the results were reproduced. If I flip 4 and S doesn't apply, then S isn't true.

>> No.4224935

>>4224927
it's about their opinions, not their backgrounds
if a philosopher says something about science and it's correct, I don't see how you need to have a PhD in maths to actually 'be' correct. Your argument is logically flawed, nevertheless

>> No.4224936
File: 65 KB, 566x480, read.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224936

>>4224931

>> No.4224937

>>4224927
>Look at pic related

Calc II, maybe Calc III for the double integral.

>> No.4224940

>>4224931
>Let A = {1, 2, 7}
>Let B = {2, 5, 9}
>Let C = {9, 10, 11}


Look dude:

Let A = {1, 2, 7}
Let B = {2, 5, 9}
Let C = {9, 10, 11}

Some B are A
Some C are B
therefor some C are A. (false claim)

The conclusion does not necessarily follow. Surely, its possible it could, but its not a necessity

>> No.4224942

>>4224933
It doesn't say that a consonant can't have an even number on the other side. Confirmed for a philosopher.

>> No.4224944

>>4224933
All vowels are attached to even numbers, but not all even numbers are attached to vowels. Some of you really suck at this.

>> No.4224948
File: 20 KB, 800x600, edgeworth.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224948

>>4224894
yup.
I realize my picture might not have been as clear as I intended.
Here's a clearer version

>> No.4224950

>>4224931
No its not.

>all things black and white are penguins
>some black and white things are TV shows
>therefore some penguins are TV shows
Thats correct.

Your version should end with.
>therefore its possible some penguins are TV shows.
Your version implys the possibilty but by saying "some black and white things" that implys there are more black and white things than just penguins therefore its not 100% some penguins will be TV shows as it may be these other things.

>> No.4224951

>>4224931
you're too goddamn stupid and you should feel really bad now

i hope you're not a STEM major

>> No.4224954
File: 62 KB, 400x400, Icono_xD_para_wikipedia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224954

>NYU

>> No.4224958

>>4224940
>>4224950
ok thanks

>> No.4224960

>>4224906
it's basically the same question, except it has alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and underage/overage patrons. It's to show people how wrong they were with the letter/number one

>> No.4224961

>>4224948
It's funny because my discrete math class ran into similar problem using Venn diagrams. The representation makes it look like A DOES necessarily intersect C, which is why it helps to use set notation to prove how it isn't always true.

>> No.4224967
File: 11 KB, 184x184, 1356576298666b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224967

ITT: /lit/ confirmed for smartest board

>> No.4224970
File: 12 KB, 773x461, defeator.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224970

>>4224961

The reason is because they way they drew it seems to support the case.

>> No.4224976

>>4224935
>if a philosopher says something about science and it's correct
Well firstly because if they say something, for it to be correct it would need to be proven.
They could say the universe was never created by the big bang, that may be true but if they can't prove it they are just floundering.

>Your argument is logically flawed
>to have a good grasp on science
>you need to study science
Yeah so flawed, if a philosopher wants to make a UFT thats cool but is meaningless if they have no concept of what they are doing or if they can prove it.

>My UFT
>QM mechanics are actually conciseness and they create GR that's how they unite
I cannot prove this or use any science to back me up.
But because I do have an MSc is physics and a degree in maths, I can using science and maths try to prove this and while doing this disprove my theory.
Philosophers with no science background cannot do this. You cannot just guess how AW and similar things react, you have to study it, you cannot come to a logical conclusion with AW, you study and observe how it reacts with other things and then come to a small conclusion and bit by bit build from there over the years until we get todays AWT.

>> No.4224981
File: 32 KB, 384x387, sad-ghost.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4224981

>mfw i suck at logic
>mfw i want to write a main character that excels at logic
fug

>>4224950
Not that guy but, wasn't that one of the things most people get wrong about formal logic?
That logic refers to the structures of a reasoning but not the validity of the premises in correlation to reality, thus all conclusion is possible but not absolute?

>> No.4224983

>>4224976
Dude don't argue with them. Just let them make baseless theories that have no backing.

>> No.4224987

>>4224981
*all conclusions are possible but not absolute

>> No.4224988

>mfw some science babby relied on a posteriori near me

>> No.4224989

>>4224981
Coursera offers intro logic classes, and textbooks aren't that bad as long as you do excercises.

>> No.4224990

>>4224981
logical truth is not actual truth

if you say
all negroes are purple
i am a negro
therefore i am purple

that's logically correct

>> No.4224991

>>4224935
>baby throws a box of bullets into a fire
>one of the bullets hit a bullseye from a mile away
>I don't see how you have to be a marksman to accurately shoot targets from a mile away

>> No.4224993

>>4224976
are you implying knowledge on a subject is impossible when you don't have a degree in it?

>> No.4224994

>>4224983
the only problem is they get funded to make these baseless claims

>> No.4224996

>>4224989
Thanks.

>>4224990
Oh.

>> No.4224997

>>4224990
if you say
all negroes are purple
I am purple
therefore I am a negro

Does it still stand?

>> No.4224998

>>4224991

Thats not what they are arguing. They are simply telling you not to dismiss claims on some subject, which could be well formed, even though the person was not an expert on the topic.

You'd be a fucking idiot if you did this

>> No.4224999

>>4224997
no because other people could be purple too

>> No.4225001

>>4224997
you are all negroes
captcha: faced nthsigh

>> No.4225002

>>4224997

No, negroes -> purple
but it was not stated that purple -> negros

>> No.4225003

>>4224997

All negroes may be purple persons but not all purple persons are shadow-men.

>> No.4225004

>>4224976
if i have entry-level knowledge of science (which i have) and i'd say that scientific truth is not possible or something, i could defend that position without having knowledge of quantum mechanics of the cool formulas you posted earlier

>> No.4225005

>>4224999
okay, now that we have that worked out

some part of a negro is purple
some part of me is purple
therefore some part of me is a negro

>> No.4225008

>>4224931
The middle term (black and white things) is undistributed, breaking one of the main rules of syllogisms, making your conclusion invalid.

>> No.4225009

>>4224981
>[...] in correlation to reality [...] all conclusion is possible but not absolute?
read kripke; also, we have semantical truths and truths from indexicality that correlate with reality... e.g. "all bachelors are unmarried men" and "i am here now"

>> No.4225010

>>4224867
shit i read it wrong i thought you had to pick only one card

>> No.4225011

This thread went quickly from "Look at stupid" to "I am stupid".

Holy shit /lit/, you're embarrasing

>> No.4225012

>>4225011
It may be a ruseman that we are falling for.

>> No.4225013

>>4225005
that's false too because the purple part could also exist in chinese people

>> No.4225016

>>4225011
it's ironic how people ITT claimed you shouldn't study philosophy when so many people got syllogisms wrong

>> No.4225017

>>4225005

>some

there's your problem

>> No.4225018

>>4225016

You dont need to study philosophy to study logic

>> No.4225021

>>4225013
excellent.

Now then
A intersects B
C intersects B
therefore A intersects C

>> No.4225022

>>4225018

I mean, in the sense that you dont need to major/dedicate your life to philosophy

>> No.4225023

>>4225018
logic is a branch of philosophy in academia

>> No.4225025

>>4225021
this would be correct for 'all' but Aristotle made a distinction between 'all' and 'some'
are you still trying?