Argumentum Ad Awesomeness
While Aristotle’s “proof” that not (A and not-A) has survived for over 2,000 years, it now seems that there is even stronger proof that he is wrong. I thus present the Argumentum Ad Awesomeness:
1. Q
2. ~Q
——
3. Q or P (1, by addition, and where P is something awesome, like “I get super skateboard powers” or “girls like me.”)
———-
4. P (by 3, 2, Disjunctive Syllogism)
Thus, if (Q and ~Q), then something awesome, so (Q and ~Q), Q.E.D.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
awesome !
May 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“From the fact that this table seems brown to everyone, it does not follow that it is brown. But just what does it mean to say, ‘This table isn’t really brown after all’? – So does it then follow from its appearing brown to us, that it is brown?
Don’t we just call brown the table which under certain circumstances appears brown to the normal-sighed?” RoC 29e.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Is this a version of the formula that’s visible on the table on the “philosophers” folder?
May 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
it seems so.
May 10th, 2017 at 9:15 pm
Having read this I thought it was extremely enlightening. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to put this information together. I once again find myself personally spending a significant amount of time both reading and leaving comments. But so what, it was still worth it!