Logic 101: Propositions (Not the ones for sex) - MGTOW

This is the first in a three part series on the basics of formal logic. Watching this series will give you a good idea of how I construct my arguments.

Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/ground....work_for_the_metaphy

Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin..../webscr?cmd=_s-xclic

Script
http://www.gftmom.com/portfoli....o-item/logic-101-sen

Hey everybody, Marcus here.

Many communities on youTube, such as the anti-feminist community, and the skeptic community, continuously state their pride as it pertains to their command of logic. Within MGTOW, we too make such claims. However, as one listens to content created or reads comments within our and other communities, we can see that there are few who have had any exposure of formal logic. This manifests itself in subtle ways. Failures in logic occur in these communities frequently but go undetected as they tend to occur within a message that is overall approved of by the audience.

Now, many people have asked me how I go about constructing my arguments. Well, the simple answer is that I stick closely to formal logic. However, this does not mean anything to someone who is not familiar with formal logic. As such, to help those within our community to better equip themselves with reasoning skills, I will be putting out a 3-video series on the most basic parts of formal logic. Logic has its own language. When you understand this language you also come to understand how arguments are constructed, how arguments gain persuasive power, and most importantly, how to interpret and attack an argument.

Another very important benefit of understanding even the basics of formal logic is that you will be able to tell when someone has no idea what they are talking about and be able to demonstrate the case. Some of the things you will encounter in this series might surprise you. So, if you have no previous exposure to formal logic, please do yourself the favor of sitting through this series. You will come out as a more competent critical thinker because of it. The material will all be intuitive when it is clearly explained so you should not be worried about whether or not you will understand it. I guarantee you will understand this material because, well, you are a rational being.

The first video in this series, namely, this video, will talk about sentences and propositions. The second video will deal with arguments. The third video will deal with the validity and soundness of arguments.
So, let’s get started!

When we reason, we use sentences. The sentence “The hypergamous whore who is in love with Fred offended most of her beta male orbiters” implies, inter alia, the sentence “Some hypergamous whore offended most of her beta male orbiters” as well as the sentence “Some hypergomous whore is in love with Fred.” Someone who accepts the first sentence must also accept the second sentence. However, not all sentences are suited to enter into inferential relations with other sentences. Nothing follows from such a sentence as “Hey!” (someone might be greeting another person in this way, or someone might be calling another, or someone might be explaining to another how to say the equivalent of ‘Ciao!’ in English, etc.). Simply put, the sentence “Hey!” contains too little information to be the basis for drawing conclusions.

This is why at the very foundation of logic lies the distinction between sentences and propositions. Sentences are identified with the grammatically correct sentences of English. A proposition or sometimes referred to as a statement, on the other hand, is what an unambiguous declarative sentence asserts. The same proposition can be asserted using different sentences. For example, the sentences:

Logic is the most boring subject for a video Marcus has ever chosen.

and

The most boring subject for a video Marcus has ever chosen is logic.

say the same thing – they can both be used to assert the same proposition. Moreover, the very same proposition is asserted by the following sentences:

Logic is boring. [in English]
La logique est ennuyeux. [in French]
La lógica es aburrida. [in Spanish]
Logik ist langweilig. [in German]
Logika jest nudna. [in Polish]

Logicians care about propositions because propositions are the proper bearers of truth-values: propositions can be true or false. In classical logic, there are only two truth-values: true and false.