Every political philosopher of the early twentieth century who was either a socialist or a communist was influenced b...
KathOctober 2, 2019
Only & the only
I think the logic of the sentence RL is the only person to influence every early 20th century pp who was either socialist or communist is the person influenced every early 20th century pp who was either socialist or communist>RL. As to me, even if the logical indicator seems to be the only, but the true in dictator is only, and the actual meaning seems to be is that RL is the only one who influenced them. Please correct me if I am wrong.
In addition, is it necessary to separate the either S or C to if no S, then C? It seems that in your explanation, the logical chain is just pps or ppc, by using the word or. Should I just use the or, or should I break them down to the if, then conditional logic? Looking forward to your help! Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The premise is that "every political philosopher who was a socialist (p) or communist (q) was influenced by Rosa Luxembourg (r)" would be diagrammed as:
P v Q -> R
The premise is not saying that RL is the only one who influenced socialist/ communist philosophers if I understand your question correctly, rather that RL influenced every socialist/ communist philosopher but she could be one of many influential figures. It is not necessary to separate "either or" conditional statement.
The second premise "no one who was influenced by Rosa Luxembourg (r) advocated for a totalitarian state (s)" would be diagrammed as:
r -> ~s Its contrapositive is: s -> ~r
We can thus infer that: P v q -> ~ s
Anyone socialist or communist philosopher did not advocate for a totalitarian state (A).
