Philosophy Forum

 		Log In New Topics New Posts

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. »
  4. » Page 5

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 11:31 am
@fast,
fast wrote:
Yes, that's what I'm saying, but your previous paragraph has peaked my curiosity. You said, "denied it (refused to believe it)". I take it that you think one meaning or sense of "denied" is logically equivalent to "refused to believe it." I have no problem with you refusing to believe something so long as there's something to refuse to believe, so if you can show that they can rightfully be considered synonymous, then I suppose you got me.


Well, I'd post an entry from an online dictionary (as I've previously done), or something supporting the claim that in formal logic one may use "deny" to mean "negation" (again, another example where one need not claim anything), but I think you know about both of these.

Quote:

But, notice the example. There are implications.

This is where the basis of your argument lies, isn't it? What do you mean by, "There are implications"?
 
fast
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 12:14 pm
@Zetherin,
[QUOTE=Zetherin;109268]Well, I'd post an entry from an online dictionary (as I've previously done), or something supporting the claim that in formal logic one may use "deny" to mean "negation" (again, another example where one need not claim anything), but I think you know about both of these.

This is where the basis of your argument lies, isn't it? What do you mean by, "There are implications"?[/quote]

The distinction I'm drawing is subtle, and it just could be the case that the term isn't as precise as I'm trying to be and therefore I (perhaps) ought not come to the conclusion I have been coming to.

The example says, "He denied his fatal illness," and if someone actually said that, then it would not be the person that may in fact have the fatal illness, so it's someone talking about him that may have a fatal illness. I wonder how it is the speaker (who I'll refer to as Jane) knows (not that he is in denial or denies) but rather how it is she (the speaker) knows that he (the guy) denied his fatal illness if not communicated to her by him or another.

Of course, if he has been told that he has a fatal illness, he could be in denial, and one that is in denial can be in denial without actually declaring that he doesn't believe it, yet if to be in denial that something is the case is equivalent to denying that something is the case, then I don't have much of a leg to stand on, but it's possible to be in denial yet not deny (to another) that something is not the case.

The definition I cited (which was cited for the purpose of disproving my own case) is "refuse to accept or believe," and I can't help but agree that we can refuse to accept or believe something without making it known, so although I'm making a distinction, the word, "deny" apparently isn't precise enough for that.

The original important point was that there is no denial of something unless there is something for the denying, and since you already made it clear that you agree with that, I suppose that is important enough.

Now, where ever did I get the notion that one cannot deny something without making an assertion, especially since I agree that one can be in denial without making an assertion? Oh well. I suppose I wasn't associating being in denial with denying something. There is, as I've said, a difference, but I suppose that difference doesn't matter when it comes to what the word, "deny" means.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. »
  4. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 10:24:19
▲ ▼