Philosophy Now Forum

PROBLEM:

Consider the claim, "A white horse is a horse."

Is it true or is it false?
Most people would say, "It's true."

But how can that be the case given that a white horse is not the same as a horse?

1) A white horse can only be white.
2) A horse can be of any color.
3) Therefore, a white horse is not the same as a horse.

SOLUTION:

Of course, before one can evaluate the truth value of a statement, one has to properly understand it.

The above statement can be interpreted in one of the following ways:

1) Every member of the class "white horse" belongs to the class "horse".

2) The class "white horse" is the class "horse".

The first interpretation is the correct one and under that interpretation the statement is true and the above argument is irrelevant.

The second interpretation is an incorrect one and under that interpretation the statement is false and the above argument is relevant.

Unfortunately, there are brain-damaged people on this forum. One of them, Skeppie McDickie, will be the subject of this post.

Skeppie McDickie argues that the Law of Excluded Middle ( LEM ) is not true.

SKEPPIE MCDICKIE'S ARGUMENT:

Let us accept that LEM is true.

If so, given that a true proposition is NOT a proposition that is either true or false, it follows that LEM is NOT either true or false.

However, according to LEM, every proposition, including itself, is either true or false.

Therefore, LEM is false.

ANALYSIS:

Skeppie's argument rests on the rejection of the claim, "A true proposition is a proposition that is either true or false".

That is reminiscent of The White Horse Dialogue.

White Horse was a Kiowa chief

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:43 am White Horse was a Kiowa chief

-Imp

But he wasn't Chinese.

White Horse is a whiskey.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:47 am White Horse is a whiskey.

Still not Chinese . . . So far, we've had Native Americans and Scots.

White Horse is a chess piece - molded from plastic in a Chinese toy manufacturing facility

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 3:20 am White Horse is a chess piece - molded from plastic in a Chinese toy manufacturing facility

-Imp

Alright, this is hard to argue against. But someone else might come up with something more convincing, something . . . more Chinese?

(Chinese heroin (opium) dens)

This cop expects “white horse” to mean heroin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlYJf6CJXV8

The cop’s narrow assumptions about horse don’t account for a white pony being any vehicle that takes you there, hopefully in the metaphorical (intellectual) sense.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:37 am PROBLEM:

Consider the claim, "A white horse is a horse."

Is it true or is it false?
Most people would say, "It's true."

Most people may well say, 'It is true', 'I', however, would ask, 'What is the 'it' word referring to, exactly?'

And, if 'it' is to 'that sentence, and claim, then, 'I' would just then ask, 'Is every horse of any color, a horse?'

And then just wait for their, or your, reply.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:37 am But how can that be the case given that a white horse is not the same as a horse?

Who, exactly, is saying and claiming that a so-called 'white horse' is not the same as 'a horse'?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:37 am 1) A white horse can only be white.

Have you ever known any horse, which has been called, and claimed to be, 'a white horse' to be only 'white'?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:37 am 2) A horse can be of any color.
3) Therefore, a white horse is not the same as a horse.

But, 'a horse' is 'A horse', no matter what the color of the skin is.

'This' is like every 'human being' is A 'human being', no matter what the color of the skin, on A 'human body', is.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:37 am SOLUTION:

Of course, before one can evaluate the truth value of a statement, one has to properly understand it.

The above statement can be interpreted in one of the following ways:

1) Every member of the class "white horse" belongs to the class "horse".

2) The class "white horse" is the class "horse".

The first interpretation is the correct one and under that interpretation the statement is true and the above argument is irrelevant.

The second interpretation is an incorrect one and under that interpretation the statement is false and the above argument is relevant.

To me, a 'problem' is just 'a question posed for a solution'.

So, to me,

1. There is no actual 'problem', above here, to even begin with.

2. Therefore, there was nothing, above, to 'solve', here.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 12:44 pm Who, exactly, is saying and claiming that a so-called 'white horse' is not the same as 'a horse'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Dialogue

The White Horse Dialogue in Chinese philosophy is a debate between two unnamed speakers on a proposition often translated as 'a white horse is not a horse'. It appears in the Warring States period text Gongsun Longzi attributed to Gongsun Long, grouped under the philosophical School of Names in later taxonomies.

So, to me,

1. There is no actual 'problem', above here, to even begin with.

2. Therefore, there was nothing, above, to 'solve', here.

You're supposed to find the flaw in the argument. That is the problem. Obviously, a white horse is a horse. But where exactly does the Chinese man make a mistake?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:42 am Unfortunately, there are brain-damaged people on this forum. One of them, Skeppie McDickie, will be the subject of this post.

Skeppie McDickie argues that the Law of Excluded Middle ( LEM ) is not true.

SKEPPIE MCDICKIE'S ARGUMENT:

Let us accept that LEM is true.

If so, given that a true proposition is NOT a proposition that is either true or false, it follows that LEM is NOT either true or false.

However, according to LEM, every proposition, including itself, is either true or false.

Therefore, LEM is false.

ANALYSIS:

Skeppie's argument rests on the rejection of the claim, "A true proposition is a proposition that is either true or false".

That is reminiscent of The White Horse Dialogue.

Seems like skippie McGee doesn't understand what "or" means, more than anything.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 3:21 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 12:44 pm Who, exactly, is saying and claiming that a so-called 'white horse' is not the same as 'a horse'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Dialogue

The White Horse Dialogue in Chinese philosophy is a debate between two unnamed speakers on a proposition often translated as 'a white horse is not a horse'. It appears in the Warring States period text Gongsun Longzi attributed to Gongsun Long, grouped under the philosophical School of Names in later taxonomies.

So, to me,

1. There is no actual 'problem', above here, to even begin with.

2. Therefore, there was nothing, above, to 'solve', here.

You're supposed to find the flaw in the argument.

But, and once again, if an argument is not a sound and valid argument, then it is not worth repeating.

And, when was it ever mentioned that one is 'supposed to find the flaw in the argument', exactly?

If that argument was flawed from the beginning, then why introduce it, here?

There are countless other arguments that are flawed, which you could have presented, here.

One only has to look at all of the attempts at arguing, here, in this forum, to find and see a countless number of flaws

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 3:21 pm That is the problem.

Once more, a 'problem', to me, is a question posed for a solution. So, I do not see any actual 'problem', above, here.

Finding flaws in arguments is certainly not a 'problem', at all, to me, here.

Finding actual sound and valid arguments, here, in this forum, is however a much, much more less common experience.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 3:21 pm Obviously, a white horse is a horse.

But, 'a white horse' is 'a white horse', only, and not 'a horse', itself. This can be ascertained by the use of the 'white' word. Every thing can only ever be what 'it' is, and not something else.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 3:21 pmBut where exactly does the Chinese man make a mistake?

I do not know, yet.

But, since only in this post any question about some so-called "chinese man" making some alleged mistake has been mentioned, I can 'now' have a look for you.

Also, and by the way, when, and if, learn what the word 'man' is actually referring to, exactly, then you will also be able to see how a 'man', itself, could never be "chinese". Similar to how a 'horse', itself, could never be 'white'.

But, 'this' is going 'even deeper', or even further, than what you are just wanting to look at and discuss, here.

Now, on a very quick glance, I have no idea who this so-called "Chinese man" is that you are referring to, here. So, I am not able to look at where it has supposedly made a mistake, or not.

Secondly, I saw no argument presented either, in which to look for 'a flaw'.

In fact, it was claimed that the original has been lost, and as such words have just been added in and/or changed and replaced, so this only adds to more confusion of who, and what 'actual mistake', are you even talking about and referring to, here?

Even 'the two' interlocutors were provided with actual designated names, which described what 'their roles' were to be in, and thus what they were fighting and arguing for, or against, in 'that discussion'. So, again 'which' so-called "chinese man" are you even referring to, exactly?

By the way, it could be said, and argued;

If a 'white swan' IS A 'swan', then ALL 'swans' are 'white'. So, there are NO 'black swans', which are 'swans', themselves.

However, if 'swans', themselves, can be of varying colours, including black and white ones, then there can be, what are called, 'black' and 'white' 'swans'.

Now, some people might have missed some of the intricacies and subtleties, here, but they do exist, and without absolute precise denotations, and precise clarifications asked for and provided, then what is actually being meant can get unnoticed.

See, what is actually meant, and intended, in what is said, or written, which has, and holds, far, far more importance, than what is just assumed, or inferred, in what was said, or written.

So, if someone says, or writes,

'A white horse is, (or is not), a horse', then what is 'it', exactly, that 'that one' is actually meaning, and/or referring to, EXACTLY?

Which, obviously, only the 'speaker', and/or 'writer', would be the 'only one' who would know know, for sure, correct?

By the way, to you, what does the 'problem' word mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 7:46 pm If that argument was flawed from the beginning, then why introduce it, here?

Flawed arguments are useful if you want to learn how to recognize mistakes in bad reasoning.

That way, you not only strengthen your own ability to reason ( by strengthening your defenses against making logical mistakes ) but you also help other spot their mistakes.

Once more, a 'problem', to me, is a question posed for a solution. So, I do not see any actual 'problem', above, here.

The problem is to spot the flaw in the argument.

Finding flaws in arguments is certainly not a 'problem', at all, to me, here.

Well, if you don't care, that's your own choice.

Finding flaws not only makes your ability to reason stronger, it also helps other people correct their mistakes.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 2:37 am PROBLEM:

Consider the claim, "A white horse is a horse."

Is it true or is it false?
Most people would say, "It's true."

But how can that be the case given that a white horse is not the same as a horse?

Q.E.D the fucking idiot doesn't understand the difference between identity and equivalence.

The equivalence class of a horse contains white horses.
There is an equivalence relation between a horse and the horse equivalence class.

There is no identity relation between them.