Skip to main content

Lecture XII

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 26))

  • 1331 Accesses

Abstract

We come back to the question why the logical method of rigorous logical inferences that works so well in geometry cannot be used in philosophy. Philosophical concepts are already in place before we begin philosophising, so that any attempt at defining them ends up in concept-swapping, i.e. replacing the original concept with a different and arbitrary one. Whenever philosophers do that, they equivocate. This fallacy is often compounded with circular definitions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Today we would say that the commutative law is provable by mathematical induction.

  2. 2.

    The term used by the Schoolmen was ens universale, ens commune, and occasionally ens generale. Behind all these terms lurks Aristotle’s ‘being qua being’ (Metaphysics Γ).

  3. 3.

    See Locke (1690, Book IV, Chap. VII, §9). Compare Berkeley’s famous critique (1710, Introduction, §XIII).

  4. 4.

    See Nelson (1908, Chap. VI).

  5. 5.

    The set of all sets that do not contain themselves was introduced in the context of Russell’s famous contradiction or paradox (see Russell 1903, Chap. X). Nelson worked on the general logical form covering Russell’s as well as other set-theoretic contradictions (see Grelling and Nelson 1908).

  6. 6.

    Nelson has Bergson (1903) in mind here. On p. 9 Bergson says that metaphysics only deserves its name ‘when it overcomes concepts, or at least when it frees itself from stiff and ready-made concepts in order to create concepts quite different from the usual ones, I mean flexible, loose, almost fluid, always ready to mould themselves upon the elusive shapes of intuition’. For a more thorough treatment of this view, see Chapter “Lecture XIII”. Bencivenga (2000) develops a very interesting argument to the effect that there has been a struggle between two kinds of logic going on ever since Hegel modified Kant’s philosophy and consisting precisely in the acceptance or rejection of ‘fluid concepts’. The reader might be aware of a huge literature on this very topic starting with Wittgenstein (1953) in philosophy and Rosch (1973) in cognitive science. This is no place to tackle what is a rather complex issue, but it may be interesting for the reader to consider Bencivenga’s proposal jointly with the logical diagnosis Nelson presents in his Chapter “Lecture XXII”, when he distinguishes between an Aristotelian-Kantian and a Neoplatonic-Fichtean logic.

  7. 7.

    Examples of such philosophers will be given in Chapter “Lecture XIII”.

  8. 8.

    In Kant’s original scheme the logical form of the conditional corresponds to the category of causality. Today this idea has been modified by having the antecedent and consequent of the causal conditional connected to each other by a counterfactual link. This modified analysis of causality was initiated by Reichenbach (1947, 1954) and has become more or less standard in discussions of causality within analytic philosophy and, after deeper modifications, in computational science (see Pearl 2000).

References

  • Bencivenga, Ermanno. 2000. Hegel’s dialectical logic. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergson, Henri. 1903. Introduction à la métaphysique. Revue de métaphysique et de morale 11: 1–36. [English translation: Introduction to metaphysics, New York, Putnam, 1912].

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkeley, George. 1710. A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge, Part I. Dublin: Aaron Rhames for Jeremy Pepyat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grelling, Kurt, and Leonard Nelson. 1908. Bemerkungen zu den Paradoxien von Russell und Burali-Forti [Remarks on the paradoxes of Russell and Burali-Forti]. Abhandlungen der Fries’schen Schule (N.F.) 2: 301–334. [Reprinted in Nelson (1971–1977), vol. III, pp. 95–129].

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1690. An essay concerning humane understanding. London: The Basset.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Leonard. 1908. Über das sogenannte Erkenntnisproblem [On the so-called problem of knowledge]. Abhandlungen der Fries’schen Schule (N.F.) 2(4): 413–818. [Reprinted in Nelson (1971–1977), vol. II, pp. 59–393].

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Leonard. 1971–1977. Gesammelte Schriften, 9 vols. Edited by Paul Bernays, Willy Eichler, Arnold Gysin, Gustav Heckmann, Grete Henry-Hermann, Fritz von Hippel, Stephan Körner, Werner Kroebel, and Gerhard Weisser. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of formal logic. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, Hans. 1954. Nomological statements and admissible operations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3): 328–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand. 1903. The principles of mathematics, vol. I. Cambridge: University Press. [No second volume was ever published].

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophische untersuchungen. Philosophical Investigations. German text and English translation by G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nelson, L. (2016). Lecture XII. In: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. Argumentation Library, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20783-4_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics