P. 1
Place Logic and Real Logic

Place Logic and Real Logic

|Views: 24|Likes:
Published by Anthony Fejfar
This article asserts that the nominalist place logic of Ramus is illegal when criticized in light of Real Logic.
This article asserts that the nominalist place logic of Ramus is illegal when criticized in light of Real Logic.

More info:

Published by: Anthony Fejfar on Jun 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/25/2012

pdf

text

original

Place Logic and Real Logic By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif ©Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq.

, Coif Philologist Walter Ong, in his various books dealing with philology, such as, “Orality and Literacy,” criticizes the “place logic” of Ramus, and argues that we must return to reason, based upon Real Logic. We must avoid ramified nominalism, which is place logic. Thus, it is clear that two Logic Rules must be applied when using Symbolic Logic and Logical Positivism. First, a logical contradiction is an illegal move in logic. You cannot have A and not A, in the same argument or logical proof. In concrete terms, you cannot have an “ (A)pple and no(t) (A)pple” in your hand at the same time. This is the illegal logical contradiction of A and not A. Moreover, Real Logic also requires that you cannot have a “contradiction between statement and performance (or action).” Thus, you cannot say, for example, “It is wrong to steal money,” and then, you yourself, steal money. This is the illegal fallacy of hypocrisy. When Real Logic is used, soon we begin to recognize that reason does exist, and operate, not just mere, thin, ideas or logic.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->