Introduction to Logic by Dr.

Leonard Peikoff LECTURE 7

Q & A + SOLUTIONS

Exercises on Immediate Inference Page 9 No. 1 (c).

Exercises on Immediate Inference Page 9 No. 1 (d).
Exercises on Immediate Inference Page 9 No. 2.
Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 15
Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 16
Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 17
Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 18
Enthymeme: a Syllogism, one of whose constituents are implicit.
Either the Premise too Obvious or too Dubious, Reasons Why Enthymeme is
Used.
Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 19
Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 20
Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 21
Expression “Call Y an X” is Misleading Because Definitions are Not
Lingusitic.
Why Only Five Rule to Prove Validity of a Syllogism.
Why Exceptive Statement Valid if One of Its Constituent Premises is Valid.
Definition of Essential Characteristics, the Fundamental Which Makes the
Units of a Concept the Kind of Existents They Are and Differentiates Them
from All Other Known Existents.
In Objectivist Ethics Miss Rand Defines Value in the Broadest Sense, as
“That Which One Acts to Gain and/or Keep” Whether Rational or Irrational in
Any Morality.
No Specific Genus of “Value”, Because a Living Entity, Including Man, is
Capable of Valuing Anything – Entity, Action, Process, Quality, Etc.
Ostensibly Defined Terms Can Have Genera but No Differentia Except in
Terms of Its Cause, Not in Terms of Its Inherent Quality.
Is “Existent” the Genus of “Entity”? NO. “Existent” Only Says “It Is”, Not
“What Something Is”.

Just before we take up the homework two things about questions on Definitions. I have
a whole number of questions asking me to give Definitions of a whole variety of
Terms. For the reason that I just stated at the end of the lecture to give a Definition
requires a great deal of knowledge of the Subject matter and is not per se inherent in
any lecture of Definition. I'm going to do five next week which will concern themselves
with how do you arrive at a Definition, what steps do you have to go through and we'll
arrive at five but I'm not going to take any Term anybody throws at me and start that
process and go through all the steps. So, please confine your questions on Definition
to the general theory of Definition or questions that arise from the particular
exercises.

The other point I wanted to make about that was I have several questions asking if I
could recommend a good dictionary. Obviously the best dictionary unequivocally is the
Oxford English Dictionary. I forget how many volumes, 14 volumes or something like
that and it has also got supplements. I own that dictionary I think it's a very good
thorough dictionary it gives you very very complete information, including citations of
the usage back to whichever century it first started in, of a given Term and it is
valuable except it's very heavy to carry around and you
have to lug huge volumes. So, for a shorter dictionary the thing that I did is go to a
second-hand bookstore and find some large unabridged one volume dictionary from
the 20s or the teens. I'd be very afraid of any of the modern dictionaries. They're okay
on lesser Terms but you have to be very careful of them philosophically.
The older dictionaries are definitely better, some of them are more archaic, but as a
Rule if it's a large unabridged dictionary from the 20s or earlier it will be less
philosophically corrupt and you can check it by looking up certain Terms and if you see
a Term like “capitalism” or “selfishness”, etc., if you see that those Terms are Defined
in blatantly unfair ways that will give you a clue as to the status of the dictionary.

Exercises on Immediate Inference Page 9 No. 1 (c). Error: Reference source

not found
All right, now let us turn to this homework that we had from last week and to begin
with on Immediate Inference on Page 9.
We were doing No. 1 and we reached number (c), we were given that the statement
“All thinkers are doers” is True and we were asked to state whether each of the
following is True False or Undetermined, so this was an exercise on Immediate
Inference involving Obversion, Conversion, Contraposition and the Square of
Opposition.
The first one is No. (c), “No non-thinkers are non-doers”.
We translate that into symbols if we had the original one as “All (S) is (P)” this one will
become, “No (non-S) is (non-P)” and, we want to know what's the relation.
If “All (S) is (P)” is True, what then is the status of, “No (non-S) is (non-P)”?
We see right away we have a “non-S” and a “non-P” and an “S” and a “P” so we want
to Negate both Terms of one or the other to get them similar to each other.
The one that we're given the “No (non-S) is (non-P)” is an “E” Proposition, and you
know you can't take a Contrapositive of that, but you can of your original “All (S) is
(P)”.
So if we take a Contrapositive of the original we will get, “All (non-P) is (non-S)”, just
Reverse and Negate.
We know that that's True because it's simply the Contrapositive of the original “All (S)
is (P)”. Now we have “All (non-P) is (non-S)” is True, and we want to know what about
“No (non-S) is (non-P)”.
The Terms are in the Reverse order, but we want to apply the Square of Opposition.
The Terms have to be in the same order so we will simply take the “No (non-S) is (non-
P)” and Convert it and that will give us, “No (non-P) is (non-S)”.
We have “All (non-P) is (non-S)” is True, then what is the status of “No (non-P) is (non-
S)”?
What relation does it have to “All (non-P) is (non-S)”? It is the “E” corresponding to the
“A”, with the identical Subject and Predicate, and therefore, it is the contrary of that
“A”. If the “A” is True the contrary must be False and consequently, the statement as
given is False. The statement as given is simply the Converse of the Contrary since
the Contrary is False, the statement is False.

Exercises on Immediate Inference Page 9 No. 1 (d). Error: Reference source

not found
Now No. (d), “All non-thinkers are non-doers”.
“All (non-S) is (non-P)”.
Again by the same reasoning, we take the Contrapositive of the original we get “All
(non-P) is (non-S)”.
What's the relation between “All (non-P) is (non-S)” which we know is True, and “All
(non-S) is (non-P)”? One is the simple Converse of the other but the original is an “A”
and therefore, the simple Converse of an “A” is Undetermined, and consequently, this
statement is Undetermined.

Exercises on Immediate Inference Page 9 No. 2. Error: Reference source not

found
Given that the statement “No mortals are happy” is FALSE, state whether each of the
following is True, False, or Undetermined:
a. All mortals are unhappy.
b. All mortals are happy.
c. All happy beings are immortal.
d. Some happy beings are not immortal.

So first symbolize our original as “No (S) is (P)” and remember that is False.
We're now given the statement “All mortals are unhappy”, so we'll write that as “All (S)
is (non-P)” just by substituting symbols.
Now we have the obvious question: If “No (S) is (P)” and “All (S) is (non-P)”, what's the
relation of “All (S) is (non-P)” to “No (S) is (P)”?
It's simply the Obverse of the given. Well, if the original, the given, is False what is
the status of the Obverse? It's also False and therefore, this statement number 2 (a) is
False.
Now we're given “All mortals are happy”, “All (S) is (P)”.
Now as “No (S) is (P)” is False, what is its relation to “All (S) is (P)”?
These are two statements with the identical Subject and Predicate, the given is an “E”
Proposition and this one is an “A” Proposition.
What's the relation between an “E” and an “A”? They are Contrary and we know about
Contraries that if one is True the other must be False but if one is False the other is
Undetermined. Two Contraries might both be False and therefore, this one being the
Contrary of the original is Undetermined.

No. 2 (c), “All happy beings are immortal”, “All (P) is (non-S)”.
We are given “No (S) is (P)”.
We have to get the (non-S) to be like this which will suggest right away that we should
Obvert this. So if we Obvert “All (P) is (non-S)” we will get “No (P) is (S)”.
We are given “No (S) is (P)” and now we've got “No (P) is (S)”.
What's the relation of those two? One is simply the Converse of the other. If the
original is False what about its Converse? Obviously False also, therefore, this
statement is False. “All (P) is (non-S)” is simply the Obverse of the Converse.

Finally we're given, “Some happy beings are not immortal”, “Some (P) is not (non-S)”.
Putting in the symbol we've got the (non-S) again, so we'll Obvert and get “Some (P)
is (S)”.
“No (S) is (P)” was our original and now we have “Some (P) is (S)”. Our Subject and
Predicate are interchanged, so we will Convert and get “Some (S) is (P)”.
What's the relation between “No (S) is (P)” and “Some (S) is (P)”? One is an “E”, the
other is an “I” and those two are Contradictory.
Well, if the original is False what must then its contradictory be? True.
Therefore, this statement is True.

Now you get the idea of how to work this. I wouldn't put too much stress on this type
of Exercise but it gives you an idea of how you can take a given statement and
perform a wide variety of Inferences from it by the process of Obversion, Conversion
and the use of the various relations in the Square of Opposition.

Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 15 Error: Reference source not found

[15 If he didn’t cheat, why did he look so guilty when I asked him the question—which
is just how cheaters always look in such circumstances.

Here is a typical type of case where the person does not state his Conclusion
explicitly. He implies his Conclusion. He says “if he didn't cheat how come these funny
things happen” and therefore he implies the Conclusion that “he did cheat”.
The Standard Form of Conclusion would be “All he is cheater”.
So we've got two of our Terms right away, “he” and “cheater”.
Now all we have to do is find a Middle Term that connects “he” to something and
“cheater” to something.
The third term can be “guilty looker”, and you get as your Premise “All cheaters are
guilty lookers”. That's what he says, “this is just how cheaters look”. “All he is guilty
looker”, he looks guilty.
So our argument then is
“All cheater is guilty looker”,
“All he is guilty looker”,
Therefore, “All he is cheater”.
We have here three clear Terms – “he”, “cheater”, “guilty looker”, and then we put it
in symbols.
It would be,
“All (P) is (M)”,
“All (S) is (M)”,
Therefore, “All (S) is (P)”.
It violate the Rule of Undistributed Middle. “Guilty looker” is the Predicate of an “A”
Proposition in both Premises, therefore it's the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle.

Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 16 Error: Reference source not found

[16 All the club members are not healthy. But some of them at least are not diabetics,
because only unhealthy people have diabetes.

The first thing to decide is what is the Conclusion. Here you see the word “because”
which indicates that what comes after it is a Premise and, therefore, we infer that the
Conclusion is the second statement “some of them at least are not diabetic”, “some of
the members”.
So our Conclusion we can state in Standard Form,
“Some members are not diabetic”.
That's clear enough but now our Premises each have a catch in them.
“All the club members are not healthy”, that is the “All (S) is not (P)” Form which is
impermissible, so you have to decide, “does he mean not a single one is healthy, in
other words, an “E” Proposition, “No club members are healthy”?
Or does he mean “some of them aren't healthy, even though some of them are”?
There is no way to tell from this Context and we always assume the weakest
interpretation, the minimum, so we write down for this Premise,
“Some members are not healthy”,
and we can treat that as an “O” Proposition, “Some members are not healthy”, with
“healthy” as the Predicate, and now we have as the remaining Premise, “Only
unhealthy people have diabetes”.
To get rid of the “Only” you drop the “Only” and Either Reverse Or Negate.
So let's Reverse and you would get,
“All diabetics are unhealthy”.
So our argument would then be,
“Some members are not healthy”,
“All diabetics are unhealthy”,
Therefore, “some members are not diabetics”.
We will immediately see that we have four Terms – “healthy” and “unhealthy”,
“member”, “diabetic”.
We could pick either Premise to get rid of the fourth Term.
Suppose we pick the Second Premise and change it to, “No diabetics are healthy”, we
could just as well have taken the First Premise and made it, “some members are
unhealthy”.
But let's suppose we took the Second Premise in which case then our argument will
now be,
“Some members are not healthy”, where the Predicate is “healthy”,
“No diabetics are healthy”,
Therefore, “some members are not diabetics.”
And in this form the argument would commit the Fallacy of Negative.
Well, how did you get the Negative, how did you get the Fifth Rule, what were your
Premises and Conclusion as you wrote them down?”
“All healthy are non-diabetic”.
“No healthy are diabetic”.
Therefore, “all healthy are non-diabetic”.
That's fair enough, that's the Converse of the the Offers of the Converse of the way I
stated it.
All right, you have Three Terms that way. “Some members are non-diabetic”, you
simply rewrote the Second Premise. You wrote the Obverse of the Converse, and by
that means you had a Negative Conclusion and one Negative Premise.
You could have rewritten it, you can make it come out to just about any Fallacy by
writing Obverses or Converses of the Premises but it must come up with some Fallacy
if it's Invalid itself.

Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 17 Error: Reference source not found

[17 There is no basis for the view that all businessmen are materialists. And you must
admit that if a person is a materialist, then he doesn’t believe in God. So you can’t
claim that no businessmen are atheists.

Here is a case where you can finally use the Square of Opposition in working an
argument, because it doesn't tell you what is True, it says that something is False, so
you have to Infer what he thinks is True.
He says, “There is no basis for the view that all businessmen are materialists.” In
other words, it isn't True that “all businessmen are materialists”, it's False that “all
businessmen are materialists.”
Now “All businessmen are materialists” is an “A” Proposition.
Well, if it is False, what then must be True? If the “A” is False then the “O” must be
True, the Contradictory.
So his Premise is it's False that “all businessmen are materialists”, what then must be
True? “Some businessmen are not materialists.”
Now that's the real value of the Square of Opposition, if the person states what's False
as a Premise you have to translate it into its appropriate one, in this case the
Contradictory.
So we'd write down as our First Premise, “some businessmen are not materialists”.
And the second long one will translate simply enough as, “all materialists are non-
believers” or, since the word “atheist” appears in the Conclusion, “all materialists are
atheists”.
And now the Conclusion is, “you can't claim that no businessmen are atheists”, or “no
businessmen are atheists” is False. “No businessmen are atheists” is an “E”
Proposition.
If an “E” Proposition is False, the “I” Proposition must be True, which is its
Contradictory.
And therefore, we can state his Conclusion Positively that, in other words the
Conclusion that he says is True, that “some businessmen are atheists”.
Here's the case which I deliberately constructed to show you two uses of the Square
of Opposition in order to state the Premise and Conclusion.
Now as we have rewritten it the argument would then be,
“Some businessmen are not materialists,”
“All materialists are atheists,”
Therefore, “Some businessmen are atheists”.
And this is clearly a violation of the first half of the Fifth Rule – if a Premise is Negative
then the Conclusion must be Negative.
Here, we have the Negative First Premise and an Affirmative Conclusion, so it's Invalid.

Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 18 Error: Reference source not found

[18 Schiller, Don Carlos: “King: That she was ardent-spirited—who can deny it? I could
never give her love, yet—did she ever seem to feel the lack? Then it is proven, she is
false.”

This is more the way people state their arguments except not in this prose style,
literary style.
Now you wouldn't think that's the Syllogism, but it is.
What do you do with a thing like this? You're very lucky in this case because the
Conclusion is clear-cut introduced by the phrase “it is proven”, and the Conclusion
gives you two glorious Terms right off the bat, namely, “she” and “false”. So we know
we have a firm anchor, the
Conclusion, “all she is false”.
All we have to do is find a Third Term, once connected to “she” and once connected to
“false”.
What does he tell us? He tells us all sorts of things about “she”. He tells us that she
was ardent, that she was unloved by him, in the technical sense of he didn't give her
love, and that she didn't seem to feel the lack. So let's condense that and say “she's
indifferent”.
He tells us a lot of things about “she”, she is ardent, unloved by me, indifferent, but
that's all he tells us about “she”. There's nothing to connect that information to
“false”, unless we allow him, what is called an Implied Premise.
Now an Implied Premise, if you want a Circular Definition, is a Premise which is implied
but not stated, and if you want a technical Term – a Syllogism, one of whose
constituents is implied but not stated explicitly, is called an ENTHYMEME, that is
simply a Syllogism one of whose constituents is simply implicit. It could be a Premise
that is implied or even the Conclusion. Error: Reference source not found
If I come to you and say, “all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, draw your own
Conclusion”, that would be an Entymemematic presentation with the suppressed
Conclusion which is implied.
Now, here there is obviously a Premise Implicit, and people frequently make use of
Enthymeme sometimes, because the Premise is so obvious they don't want to waste
time stating it, sometimes because the Premise is so dubious they don't want to
expose it to the light of day. Error: Reference source not found
Now in this case the Premise is obviously very dubious and the sheer act of bringing it
to explicit statement casts grave doubt on what is the Implied Premise.
We could figure it out by the third Term that's left over if the first Premise is “all she is
ardent unloved by her husband and indifferent”, then the Implied Premise is, “all
people who are ardent unloved by their husband and indifferent are False”, that
obviously is a huge over generalization which he has no grounds to Validate but that's
the Premise that rests on.
And with that Premise in you then have,
“All (S) is (M)”,
“All (M) is (P)”,
Therefore, “All (S) is (P)”.
So that's BARBARA and that is Valid.
Any structure, “All (S) is (M)”, “All (M) is (P)”, Therefore, “All (S) is (P)”, is BARBARA.
I put that in just to give you an Enthymeme.

Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 19 Error: Reference source not found

[19 Sally didn’t get her hair done yesterday, because she got up late, and she gets
her hair done only when she gets up on time.

This is one of those cases which it's trickier to translate into standard form, this is like
the one I gave you, “Laura weeps whenever Louise cries whenever Henry is mean to
her”. This is just that same type of case.
This is the type where if you translate in an unthinking way you'll end up with all kinds
of Terms way more than Three, “all she is person who got up late”, “all she is person
who got her hair done only when she gets up on time”, “all she didn't get her hair
done”, you'll have so many Terms you'll be drowned in Terms and have no Syllogism.
So this is a case where the use of case is very helpful.
Start with the main Premise “She gets her hair done only when she gets up on time”.
“Because she got up late”, “because” introduces the Premises and therefore the very
first constituent is the Conclusion, “Sally didn't get her hair done yesterday”.
You said “yesterday” is going to be “this case”. Your translation comes out as “No this
case is hair done”.
“No this case is case of hair done”. Okay that's “she didn't get her hair done”, that's
the Conclusion so we've got two Terms ready, “this case” and “case of hair done”.
Now give us a Premise. You say “only cases of getting up on time are cases of getting
hair done”, “only when she gets up on time does she get her hair done”.
“Only cases of getting up on time are cases of hair done”, but that's got “only”, give it
to me without the “only” and suppose we Reverse, drop the “only”, Reverse and you
will get,
“all cases of getting hair done are cases of getting up on time”.
Now we have Three Terms, “this case”, “case of hair done”, “case of getting up on
time”.
We just need the Second Premise, “she got up late”. You've expressed that using the
two Terms we have left, namely, “this case” and “case of getting up on time”.
“No this case is case of getting up on time”.
So the argument as a whole will be,
“All cases of hair done are cases of up on time”,
“No this case is case of up on time”,
Therefore, “No this case is case of hair done”.
Then you check the Rules and it is Valid.
Right any questions on that? Yeah there are many possibilities which I won't work
here, but there's no reason in the world why you have to say “getting up on time” is
your key Term and translate the other one to that, you could have “getting up late” as
your key Term and translate the other one to “not get up late” instead of “getting up
on time” so you could many possibilities and, of course, in all of these arguments you
could take the Contrapositive or the Converses or the Obverses or the Obverses of the
Converses and so your original Premise “all cases of hair done are cases of up on
time” could be that or it could be “no cases of hair done are non cases of up on time”
or “no cases of non up on time are cases of hair done” or “all cases of non up on time
are non cases of hair done”. You've got all those possibilities you see and that's the
trouble with giving a Logic exam you can't just grade it mechanically you have to go
through each one of the Class of the way it worked out, but if it's Invalid by any one
method it's Invalid by all and same for Validity.

Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 20 Error: Reference source not found

[20 Down deep, all men really wish to be happy. The man who wishes to be happy,
however, must make full, active use of his mind. Down deep, therefore, all men really
make full, active use of their minds.

This particular argument is the Fallacy of Four Terms. There is no Syllogism here.
There are two Terms which look they're the same but they're really different. Now
what is the difference?
The First Premise “all men really wish to be happy” in Standard Form can be “all men
are happy wishers”.
The problem is in the Second statement, “the man who wishes to be happy must
make full active use of his mind”. Well, this one doesn't say “the man who wishes to
be happy does make full active use of his mind”, it says, “if he wants to make it then
he's obligated or it's required or it's necessary for him”.
So this is not a description of what everybody who wants to be happy does as a
matter of fact do, but an injunction or a law as to what they are required to do if
they're to satisfy their desires.
Now is it possible for someone to desire something and yet not to do what is required,
not even to want to do what is required? Obviously. Therefore, if we translated this
Second Premise we would have something like, “all happy wishers are men required
to use their mind” or “men obligated to use their mind”.
But now our Conclusion tells us “down deep, therefore, all men really do make use of
their mind”, so the translation be “All men are men who actually use their mind”.
So what's the Fourth Term? We have “men” twice, “happiness wishers” twice, but then
our remaining Term in the Premise is “men required to use their mind” and in the
Conclusion “men who actually use their mind” which is not the same Term, and no,
one is not simply the Negation of the other, you can't translate one to the other.
Consequently, this is the Fallacy of Four Terms.

Syllogism Exercises Page 10 No. 21 Error: Reference source not found

[21 It is ridiculous to claim that any course on logic improves the student’s thinking. I
know, because I took a logic course once and my thinking was not only not improved,
it positively deteriorated as a result.

Now we see that “because” introduces the Conclusive Premises, so the first statement
must be the Conclusion and the Conclusion begins with “it is ridiculous to claim such
and such”, “it is false to claim that any course on Logic improves the students
thinking”.
So what must be True? “All people who take Logic courses are improved” is False, the
“A” Proposition is False, what must be True by the Square of Opposition? The “O”, in
which case, if you translated that originally as “all Logic course takers are improved or
improvers after the course” which is False, the “O” will be, the true statement he
wants to come to, is “some Logic course takers are not improved or improvers after
course”.
And now if our Conclusion is “some Logic course takers are not improvers after
course” where we interpret that as an “O” Proposition, what are our Premises?
“I took a Logic course once”, that would come out as “all I am Logic course taker” and
the Second
Premise “my thinking was certainly not improved” would be “no I am improver or
improved after course”.
Now we write that out,
“All I am Logic course taker”,
“No I am improver after course”,
Therefore, “some Logic course takers are not improvers after course”.
That'll be,
“All (M) is (S)”,
“No (M) is (P)”,
Therefore, “Some (S) is not (P)”.
And that is Valid, the Middle Term is Distributed in both cases, the Major is Distributed
but so is it in the Premise, there's one Negative and a Negative Conclusion.

All right that concludes our homework. Now let me take up some of the written
questions that I have accumulated, that do not consist of asking me for Definitions of
various things, and we will take up the Definitional homework next week.

Q
Are there Definitional Fallacies involved in the following form: X consists of, for
instance, what triangularity consists of, plain figurehood bounded by three straight
lines.

I think it's awkward, but I don't see any Fallacy or any particular error involved in using
“the consists of” formulation.
Q [Expression “Call Y an X” is Misleading Because Definitions are Not
Lingusitic.] Error: Reference source not found
What about the expression “we call a Y an X”?

That is misleading if it makes it sound as though Definitions are Linguistic, and it's
simply a matter of the way we use words.
We're not concerned with what we call things.
When we make Definitions we are concerned with what things actually are and,
therefore, I would never use a formulation such as, “we call man the rational animal,
etc.”
I would say “man is the rational animal”. In other words, I would state it Factually and
not Linguistically, because Definitions are to make clear our statement of Fact stating
the Essential Characteristics of a certain Class. They are not reports of linguistic
behavior.

Q [Why Only Five Rule to Prove Validity of a Syllogism.] Error: Reference

source not found
Please explain why the Five Rules for analyzing Syllogisms are the Only Five Rules
needed to prove Validity?

Not to go into technicalities, I'll put it to you this way.

Those Five Rules cover every Variable within a Syllogism. There are no other aspects
left that could possibly affect Validity and you can see that as follows.
Obviously the Three-Term Rule is part of the very Definition of Syllogism so you have
to have Three Terms to get started.
Now in what ways do Syllogisms vary on which their Validity depend?
Obviously not on the content. There's only two ways they can vary – the Quantity of
the Premises and Conclusion and the Quality of the Premises and Conclusion. That is
all that there is to vary.
What is the relevance of the Quantity? Only how it affects Distribution. So if we have a
Rule covering the Distribution of the Middle Term and a Rule covering the Distributions
that are permissible for the Minor and Major Terms, we've taken care of every
conceivable Quantitative Fact, which leaves us only Qualitative Factors that vary.
And the only Qualitative Factors are what kind of Negatives and Affirmatives can you
have and once we've specified Rules Four and Five about Two Negatives and One
Negative and a Negative Conclusion there is no
thing left.
The only way that the Premises can vary in a way that affects the Validity is the
Quantity through the Distributions or the Quality. We have Rules covering every
Variable Aspect, there's nothing left.
So that'll do for an explanation of why those are the only Rules.

Q [Why Exceptive Statement Valid if One of Its Constituent Premises is

Valid.] Error: Reference source not found
Question on the Exceptive Statement: Why is the original Syllogism Valid if only one of
its constituent Syllogisms is Valid?

The answer to that is simple, look at it this way. Your Exceptive Statement is a
Compound Statement. Let's take an example: every train, except express train, stop
at this station.”
That gives you two pieces of information, “all non-expresses are stoppers” and “no
expresses are stoppers”, it gives you both those pieces of information. Let's call one of
those pieces A and the other B, so the Original Premise tells you “A Plus B”. Now your
next Premise, let us say, “this train is an express train” is C, and the Conclusion is,
therefore, “this train stopped or didn't”, whatever, is D.
Now you've got “A Plus B” as your Original Premise and another Premise C and the
Conclusion D. So the person is putting forth, therefore, two different Arguments, he's
saying “A Plus C, therefore D” or “B Plus C, therefore D”.
Now if Either of those is Valid his Original Argument is Valid. The Fact that he gives
you an extra piece of information that is unnecessary for the Conclusion or even that
wouldn't by itself lead to the Conclusion doesn't mean that he hasn't given you the
information required as long as the Premises actually required to come to the
Conclusion are given in the Original Argument. That argument is Valid even if it gives
you additional information which is not necessary and which by itself or with the other
Premises would not lead to that Conclusion. That still doesn't make any difference the
argument is Valid because it contains the information required.
For instance, suppose I say “all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Napoleon lost the
Battle of Waterloo; therefore, Socrates is mortal”, that is still Valid. And you might
want to say to me “you know you didn't need the information about Napoleon”, and it
in itself does not contribute to this Conclusion, but it doesn't harm the Conclusion, it
doesn't make it Invalid to draw that Conclusion from those Premises.
Well that's what happens when you have a Compound Premise, one part of which is
unnecessary that does not Invalidate the Valid Argument that's contained in it.

Q [Definition of Essential Characteristics, the Fundamental Which Makes the

Units of a Concept the Kind of Existents They Are and Differentiates Them
from All Other Known Existents.] Error: Reference source not found
Repeat the Definition of Essential Characteristics.

The Definition of Essential Characteristic: the Fundamental Characteristic

which makes the Units of a Concept the kind of Existents they are and
Differentiates them from all other known Existents.
Miss Rand's Definition of Definition: a statement that identifies the nature of the
Units subsumed under a Concept by means of Specifying their Essential
Characteristics.
The idea is the Essence is the Fundamental characteristics which make the
thing itself and a Definition is a statement of the Essence.

Q [In Objectivist Ethics Miss Rand Defines Value in the Broadest Sense, as
“That Which One Acts to Gain and/or Keep” Whether Rational or Irrational in
Any Morality.] Error: Reference source not found
When in the Objectivist Ethics Miss Rand Defines “Value” as “that which one acts to
gain and/or keep”, is she referring to all “Values” rational or irrational in any morality?

Yes, she is defining “Value” there in the broadest sense, “that which one acts to gain
and/or keep” whether it's rational or irrational, and then she proceeds to show that
from the nature of the Concept of “Value” there is Only One Kind of Entity
which makes that Possible and that's a Living Entity and Only because it's
capable of Initiating Action Toward a Goal in the face of an Alternative,
namely Existence or Non-Existence, a Fundamental Alternative in the face of
which it has to act. And she ultimately draws the Conclusion that the Only
Rational Standard of Value is the Life of the Organism and the Only Rational
Standard of Moral Value, since that applies Only to Volitional Beings, is
Man's Life.
But the original Definition, “that which one acts to gain and/or keep” is “Value” in any
code. If a Christian aims at “union with God” that is his “Value” within his code, or
“service to society” or “mortification of the flesh”, that's what he's acting to gain
and/or keep. It's a different question is that a Rational or Irrational “Value”.

No Specific Genus of “Value”, Because a Living Entity, Including Man, is

Capable of Valuing Anything – Entity, Action, Process, Quality, Etc. Error:
Reference source not found
Now here's the case, you see, where you cannot have a Specific Genus, because a
human being, or taking in the broadest sense, a Living Entity, is capable of valuing
anything, whether it's an Entity, an action, a process, a quality, etc. So all you can say
for the Genus of “Value” is “that which – anything”, you see, there's no way of giving a
more Specific Genus.
That's the type of case I was thinking of when I said there are certain type of cases
where you simply cannot have a more Specific Genus.

Q [Ostensibly Defined Terms Can Have Genera but No Differentia Except in

Terms of Its Cause, Not in Terms of Its Inherent Quality.] Error: Reference
source not found
Would you say that “Color” is the Genus of “Red”, i.e., do Ostensibly Defined Terms
have Genera?

Yes, if they are the type of Sensations, i.e., “red”, “green”, etc. You can always give
Genera to those. “Red” and “green” are “colors”, “bitter” is a “taste”, “pain” you can
say is a “sensation”.
The problem there is not that you cannot give a Genus but you cannot give a
Differentia except in Terms of its Cause but in Terms of its Inherent Quality you can't.
You have to say “red is the color which, look”. So all you can do is give a Genus.

Q [Is “Existent” the Genus of “Entity”? NO. “Existent” Only Says “It Is”, Not
“What Something Is”.] Error: Reference source not found
Now it does not follow however that the Metaphysical Primary have Genera. Existence
has no Genus. Now the person anticipating this goes on and asks, “is Existent the
Genus of Entity”?
And I would say NO.
Now you can say, in a very loose sense, “well, isn't Existence the broadest category of
which Entity is one subdivision, action is another, etc.?”
Well, you can look at it that way if you want.
But Existence, in that Context, does not fulfill the role of the Genus because
it does not tell you what the thing basically is. “Existence” simply tells you
that “it is”, it doesn't yet say, “what it is”, and a Genus, at minimum, is
supposed to tell you “what something is”.
So if your Genus is simply Existence, you haven't really given a Genus, in a way that's
analogous to “animal” for “man”, or “a plain figure” for “triangle”, etc.

Aristotle argued that “Existence” was not a Genus, and he wrote a work called “THE
CATEGORIES” in which he tried to work out, what he called “The Summa Genera” or in
the singular “The Summa Genus”, the highest Genus you could get.
In other words, if you went from “man” to “animal”, “animal” is a subtype of “living
organism”, “living organism” is a subtype of “material Entity” and now what about
“Entity”, or as he called it “Substance”, where do you go from there? And he said
“you've hit the jackpot when you hit Entity, you can't go higher than that.” Entity was
a “Summa Genus” which is simply Latin for “the highest Genus”.
And he tried in his work called “THE CATEGORIES” to work out, what he regarded as a
complete list of the Summa Genera and those he called “The Categories” which are
the broadest, widest Genera and he had ten or twelve of them, I can't remember. In
another, he was not certain about some of the details, but for instance, he had
“action” as one, he had “relationship” as one, he had “quality” as one, “time”,
“place”, several others of that sort.

Now one question here asks me “would I discuss all Irreducible Primaries which can
only be ostensibly Defined”? No, I would not because I don't know them.
I would refer you to Aristotle's “CATEGORIES” for discussion of those, although
Aristotle wasn't correct in Classifying some of those things as Irreducible Primaries. I
don't believe “time”, for instance, is an ostensible Irreducible Primary. I think you can
Define “time”, and the same with “faith”.
And he had a number of things in there which I think are highly dubious as Primaries
like “condition” or “state” or “position”, things like that.
To me it's reasonable an Entity should be a Summa Genus, an Irreducible Primary, that
“action” or “change” or “something involving process or activity” should be because, I
think, that's only communicable ostensibly.
I have grave doubts as to whether “quality” is that Irreducible because “quality” is
simply “an aspect of an Entity”. I certainly don't believe that “relationship” is
Irreducible, because “relationship” is simply “two entities what you focus on
simultaneously and consequently”.
I do not agree with Aristotle of all of the ones he mentions are Irreducible Primaries
but I would not here be prepared to give you a theoretical statement of exactly which
things are and are not.
Certainly I would not say that “mass” and “energy” are Irreducible Primaries. I think
one of the major problems with Modern Physics is that those Terms are not even
properly Defined, they don't even know what they're talking about let alone that they
are Primaries.

We'll continue next week. Thank You.