Subject
Re: A syllogism and an epitaph
From
Date
Body
Indeed, the syllogism, as it is given in the poem, does not work, unless the
minor premise and the conclusion change places. But one can argue that
Shade, just as Tolstoy, was not concerned with logic (Ivan Ilyich's logic is
even worse, and Tolstoy knows that, but subjectively the passage is
eminently resonant). The "syllogism" simply serves to make a valid
psychological point (c'est toujours les autres qui meurent). Perhaps one
shouldn't generalize, but it's tempting to say that VN, like Borges, valued
ideas only insofar as they served a subjective aesthetical function.
Regards,
SK
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Anthony Stadlen
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:40 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] A syllogism and an epitaph
In a message dated 15/02/2007 03:09:01 GMT Standard Time,
<mailto:skb@BOOTLE.BIZ> skb@BOOTLE.BIZ writes:
God is love
Love is blind
Therefore, God is blind.
No cat has five tails
I am no cat
Therefore, I have five tails.
I hope our editors may allow me to discuss these "syllogisms", since they
help in our discussion of what makes Shade's "syllogism" false. SKB's
account seems unnecessarily complicated. Shade's "syllogism" is false simply
because it has the form:
All x are M; A is not an x; therefore A is not M. (It does not matter that x
is "other men" and A is "I" and M is "mortal".)
This is simply a false deduction. One can say only: All x are M; A is an x;
therefore A is M. Or: All x are M; A is not M; therefore A is not an x.
Of the two "pseudo-syllogisms" above offered by SKB, only the second is
false. The first is perfectly correct, provided that "love" is understood to
mean the same throughout, and that "blind" is understood throughout as
having the meaning it has in "Love is blind", namely "blind to faults".
If it were true that love is blind, then it would indeed be true that, if
God is love, then God too would be blind, in this sense of not seeing faults
in the beloved.
This conclusion, which has been correctly, syllogistically derived from the
premisses, should make us suspect that one of the premisses is false. And
indeed, the proposition that love is blind is surely false, as one cannot
love without knowing or "seeing" the beloved. Otherwise it is a fantasy, an
infatuation.
Anthony Stadlen
<http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html> Search the Nabokv-L
archive at UCSB
<mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu> Contact the Editors
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm> Visit Zembla
<http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm> View Nabokv-L Policies
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
minor premise and the conclusion change places. But one can argue that
Shade, just as Tolstoy, was not concerned with logic (Ivan Ilyich's logic is
even worse, and Tolstoy knows that, but subjectively the passage is
eminently resonant). The "syllogism" simply serves to make a valid
psychological point (c'est toujours les autres qui meurent). Perhaps one
shouldn't generalize, but it's tempting to say that VN, like Borges, valued
ideas only insofar as they served a subjective aesthetical function.
Regards,
SK
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Anthony Stadlen
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:40 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] A syllogism and an epitaph
In a message dated 15/02/2007 03:09:01 GMT Standard Time,
<mailto:skb@BOOTLE.BIZ> skb@BOOTLE.BIZ writes:
God is love
Love is blind
Therefore, God is blind.
No cat has five tails
I am no cat
Therefore, I have five tails.
I hope our editors may allow me to discuss these "syllogisms", since they
help in our discussion of what makes Shade's "syllogism" false. SKB's
account seems unnecessarily complicated. Shade's "syllogism" is false simply
because it has the form:
All x are M; A is not an x; therefore A is not M. (It does not matter that x
is "other men" and A is "I" and M is "mortal".)
This is simply a false deduction. One can say only: All x are M; A is an x;
therefore A is M. Or: All x are M; A is not M; therefore A is not an x.
Of the two "pseudo-syllogisms" above offered by SKB, only the second is
false. The first is perfectly correct, provided that "love" is understood to
mean the same throughout, and that "blind" is understood throughout as
having the meaning it has in "Love is blind", namely "blind to faults".
If it were true that love is blind, then it would indeed be true that, if
God is love, then God too would be blind, in this sense of not seeing faults
in the beloved.
This conclusion, which has been correctly, syllogistically derived from the
premisses, should make us suspect that one of the premisses is false. And
indeed, the proposition that love is blind is surely false, as one cannot
love without knowing or "seeing" the beloved. Otherwise it is a fantasy, an
infatuation.
Anthony Stadlen
<http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html> Search the Nabokv-L
archive at UCSB
<mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu> Contact the Editors
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm> Visit Zembla
<http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm> View Nabokv-L Policies
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm