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


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. Now, let us see how these two characterizations
of propositions; namely, the characteristic that “A proposition is what is asserted
by an unambiguous declarative sentence” and the characteristic that “A proposition
is either true or false” are related to one another by reflecting on whether non-declarative
sentences like exclamations or questions, and ambiguous declarative sentences can be
true or false. In other words, we will see if sentences that
serve as exclamations can be propositions. Then we will see if questions can be propositions,
and finally, we will see if ambiguous sentences can be propositions. First, let us look at exclamation sentences. The first rule of exclamation sentences is
that exclamation sentences cannot be propositions. Exclamations like “Hey!” or “Come here
bitch!” are not propositions, since they are neither true nor false. In fact, exclamations cannot be used to assert
anything at all. Next, let us look at questions. Can questions be propositions? Consider this question: “Are you drunk?” Is this question true or false? It is good if you are puzzled since this question,
in fact, no question, can be true or false. What can be true or false is the answer to
this question, but not the question itself. Again, you cannot assert anything with a question. Now, this has an interesting consequence to
it as far as some youTube videos are concerned. If you listen to a lot of response videos
you will most likely hear the speaker using a very sarcastic tone while asking a series
of questions. Because of the sarcastic tone, the listener
is being led into answering the questions in his mind in a manner implied by the speaker,
however, the speaker himself is actually not explicitly saying the answers to the questions. The listener may come out of watching a video
that did little more than use a sarcastic tone of voice to ask a bunch of questions
and feel like the speaker has made a good argument. However, this could not be further from the
truth. The speaker in fact has said nothing at all
much less made an argument. As questions cannot be true or false, they
cannot serve as propositions. If a sentence cannot serve as a proposition,
it cannot enter into inferential relations. If a sentence cannot enter into inferential
relations, it cannot serve as a premise of an argument. And if a sentence cannot serve as a premise
in an argument, you cannot create an argument out of such sentences. I have seen 20-minute-long response videos
that have literally said nothing. Sure, a lot of words came out of the speaker’s
mouth, but the video was itself completely hollow. Using questions as a rhetorical device has
another side effect to it. When a speaker ask a question, but uses a
tone of voice to insinuate that the listener should volunteer a certain answer, the speaker
cannot be held liable of things like slander, as he has not actually made an assertion. For example, look at the question: “Is president
Trump having sex with his daughter? Find out on the news at 11.” This is a backhanded bitch sentence. It associates Trump with incest without making
an assertion of incest. However, this backhanded sentence could not
be considered slander because as we have learned, questions are not propositions. But let us move on to ambiguous sentences. No ambiguous declarative sentences are propositions. Let’s consider the following declarative
sentence: “The Deans did not give the students permission
to protest since they were skinheads.” It might look as if whoever is making this
statement must be saying something that is either true or false. However, the impression is mistaken because
this sentence is in fact ambiguous. It is unclear whether ‘they’ refers to
the Deans or to the students. The following two sentences demonstrate the
two interpretations that can be contained in the sentence we just read: (1) The Deans did not give the students permission
to protest since the Deans were skinheads. (2) The Deans did not give the students permission
to protest since the students were skinheads. Now, the two sentences we just read are both
valid propositions as neither are ambiguous. Here is another example of ambiguity in a
sentence. “Susan, the bull dike lesbian, ate the tuna
in a bikini.” This sentence is again ambiguous. It is not clear who was in the bikini – Susan
or the tuna. As such, the following two interpretations
can be made. (1) While Susan, the bull dike lesbian, was
wearing a bikini, she ate the tuna. (2) Susan, the bull dike lesbian, ate the
tuna, which was put in a bikini. So, if you encounter a sentence that can be
interpreted in different ways as we have demonstrated, you can safely conclude that an argument cannot
be constructed using such a sentence as such sentences cannot be propositions. Now, there is another type of sentence that
falls into the family of ambiguous sentences. These are sentences that use indexicals. No declarative sentences with indexical expressions
are propositions. There is a class of sentences containing the
so-called “indexical” expressions (like ‘I’, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘there’,
‘now’, ‘they’, ‘ him’, ‘her’ etc.) that are notoriously ambiguous because
the indexical expressions change their referent depending on the context in which they are
uttered. Let us take the sentence:
“I am in Poland now.” We might think that the sentence is true,
but let us consider what is actually asserted by this sentence. When I, Marcus, use this sentence, I mean
by it: Marcus is in Poland on February 17th 2017. which is true. You may use the sentence too, in which case
you would mean by it: (Insert your name here) is in Poland on (Insert
current date here) in which case the proposition (most likely)
is false. The point is that depending on who utters
the sentence “I am in Poland now”, and when, it will stand for a different proposition. This marks a general difference between sentences
and propositions. In a proposition, the content is explicitly
stated whereas non-propositional sentences often leave some of the content to depend
on the context in which the sentences are uttered. Non-propositional sentences thus depend on
context, whereas propositions are independent of context. The meaning of sentence “I am in Poland
now” depends on the context in which it is uttered. If I, Marcus, utter sentence “I am in Poland
now” on February 17th 2017 in Poland, the meaning of “I am in Poland now” will be
the proposition “Marcus is in Poland on February 17th 2017.” If you utter the same sentence, namely “I
am in Poland now” today, its meaning will be the proposition “(Insert your name here)
is in Poland on (Insert current date here)”. But the meaning of the proposition “Marcus
is in Poland on February 17th 2017” does not depend on the context in which it is uttered
– it does not matter who, where or when says “Marcus is in Poland on February 17th
2017”, the truth-value of “Marcus is in Poland on February 17th 2017” will be constant. If the proposition “Marcus is in Poland
on February 17th 2017” is true when uttered by me on February 17th 2017, it will remain
true when uttered by you today. Finally, the word “statement” is sometimes
used interchangeably with the word proposition. However, since the word “proposition”
is fancier and less common in day to day conversation, I would recommend you use the word “proposition”
when talking about logic. Now, the concept of a proposition is something
that can help you a great deal when it comes to clear communication at work and in your
day to day speech. You need to develop a habit of being explicit
in your language. What I have noticed in my professional life
is the havoc and ambiguity that indexicals bring when communicating with others. Do your best to avoid indexicals when you
wish to communicate anything via text. When you are composing an email, try to avoid
the words “he, she, or they.” Instead, always name the person or group you
are referring to. Do this in each sentence. Treat each sentence as if you are constructing
a proposition. Never leave room for ambiguity. This one habit will increase the effectiveness
of your communication enormously. Also, practice this habit when asking a question. Let us imagine your co-worker says to you:
“The boss reviewed the report you submitted last week. He wants you call him to talk about it.” This can be an ambiguous sentence as there
can be any number of managers who you and your co-workers report to or engage with. You could ask your co-worker “Which boss
asked to call them?” and this should be sufficient. However, I would recommend instead that you
get into the habit of asking a closed set question instead. Ask your co-worker “Was it Harry, Stephen,
or Bill who requested I call them.” The reason you want to do this is because
you force your co-worker to answer by giving one of the names contained in your list. If you merely ask “Which boss?”, your
co-worker may respond “The main boss” which again is ambiguous and forces you to
ask yet another question in clarifying of who exactly of the “main bosses” is the
main boss being referred to. Now, this may seem like a trivial example
but consider it already demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the exchange when ambiguity is introduced. These small bits of ambiguity may mean little
when interacting face to face but when you send an ambiguous email and get a response
3 days later asking for you to clarify, you have effectively added an additional few days
of waiting between your clarifying email and the response you originally set out to receive. Now, when I write my own arguments, I try
to be very careful in my sentences. I do my best to make sure that I am putting
forward propositions and not ambiguous sentences. When I do ask questions in my arguments, as
I am prone to do; I ensure that the sentence following the question is the proposition
that answers my question. If you want to see some of these concepts
in action then watch my video on The Wall, or On Alpha Males, or On Pick-Up-Artists. The clarity in those videos come, in part,
from the meticulous use of propositions. This is another reason why arguing over words
is silly. English sentences are merely there to help
us get across the propositions. As long as what we say manages to achieve
this task, then language has served its purpose. A reasonable person will never try to fight
you on the level of language. In fact, he will try to help you on the level
of language to extract the propositions underneath. The reasonable person will try to crush you
on the propositional level. Anyways, let us summarize what we have learned
in this video. Firstly, there is a difference between sentences
and propositions. Sentences are the grammatically correct utterances
we issue in the English language. A proposition or sometimes referred to as
a statement, on the other hand, is what an unambiguous declarative sentence asserts. We also learned that no exclamation like “Hi!”
can be a proposition. We learned that question cannot be propositions. And finally, we learned that ambiguous sentences,
such as sentences with indexicals cannot be propositions. In the next video, we will see how propositions
are used in constructing an argument. But for now, thanks for listening. Go team!

30 Replies to “Logic 101: Propositions (Not the ones for sex) – MGTOW”

  1. An exclamation can be a proposition. I think what you meant to say is that imperative commands cant be propositions. I can exclaim "I love ice cream!" and that is a true statement. However a command such as "Get over here!" cant be true or false.

  2. 7:36. I think thats just ridicule meant to sow reasonable doubt, rather than logically attacking the other argument. The attack is really one of persuasion. Since the SJW video is trying to instill emotional guilt, the ridicule is meant to "emotionally" settle the viewer that the sky is not falling.

    See Sargon's "Men Need to Be Women" There are many examples of a comedy video responding with questions, as the intent is to stand upon the implied norm, that we don't live in a rape culture in the developed world. Its strength comes from people more likely having accepted sargon's argument as the norm and just looking for ammo, seeing angryaussie's guilt trip as an invasion. His video the Patriarchy also leans on this sarcasm while showing statistics.

    TFM's responses to Buzzfeed videos and Huffpo articles is more of an example of a response vids based more propositions as all the responses are more so direct statements and explanations. He's naturally very blunt, and sometimes witty. Thus direct responses seem more fitting. Those are videos for someone who would otherwise uncritically accept the false narrative, when the intent is to reel them back.

    So its also a matter of style whether you want to be more witty, or serious depending on the issue.

  3. My favorite youtuber!
    Cant find anything close to this …(i mean: it do a quick search and listen to the man afterwards)
    Keep on keeping on and sharing your ideas Marcus !

  4. I never studied formal logic, but in physics and mathematics I have to be very precise and avoid ambiguous statements that rely on context. Great video. Looking forward to the next two videos!

  5. Besides your own content, I can't think of the last time that a MGTOW channel produced a video that I considered genuinely informative or interesting.

  6. Ah yes, the great antifeminist logicians, such as Sargon of Akkad, who quotes a cathegorical proposition by Hume pertaining to all humans and still find himself to be an exception; then goes on to explain to us philosophical laymen what the quote really means in the same video he bitches about quotes taken out of context and abused to fit political narratives. Piece of shit.

    Sorry, back to watching the video, little enrages me as rethoricians abusing philosophy.

  7. save a lot of trouble when dealing with SJW, never have to use 'xir/xie' preferred pronouns. just reference directly by name.

  8. TL;DR: Is there a standardized graphical mapping language for formal logic?

    Hey Marcus. Maybe you could add a 4th video into your series that demonstrates practical usage of logic symbols for quick notation. More below after my prelude to give context for my question.

    I was formally educated in the subjects of Boolean Logic, Combinational Logic, Sequential Logic, Karnaugh maps, Timing diagrams, Flow Charts, Nassi–Shneiderman diagrams, Functional flow block diagrams, Control flow diagrams, Data flow diagrams, Activity diagrams and thoroughly trained in Object-Oriented Programming to be able to design discrete logic gate circuits, Arithmetic Logics Units, entire CPU structures, Control Units and System Interfaces and then write OOP Applications that run on a JVM ontop of the hardware.

    So I would stand to posit, that I have a solid INTUITIVE understanding of logic – at least as it pertains to my profession.

    I generally prefer graphical solutions and representations more than cascaded written statements, because it has the advantage of giving overview (like game trees: one look and you know how deep the rabbit hole goes).

    Although I love geeking out on visual representations, I have never come across a formalized visual mapping language for formal logic itself that does not amount to anything other than pure mathematical statements with a bunch of symbols I fully understand and a bunch of other symbols I never cared enough to fully comprehend. Flow Charts usually work for most of my problems, but I am wondering if there is something else out there.

    MY QUESTION: Is there a standardized graphical mapping language for formal logic? I am asking about diagrams or something else other than mathematical equations and equivalencies.

    I hope you can point me towards what I am looking for.

    Thanks.

    P.S.:
    Half of the symbols on this list I understand and use on a regular basis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

    It would be great if you could make a video demonstrating the uses of these symbols, escalating the examples from simple to complex.

  9. I gotta say great video, I've actually learned how to much better articulate my thoughts in general just from listening in.

  10. You cannot assert anything with a question? I beg to differ…. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" This question assumes as a matter of course that you have been beating your wife and floats only the question of the continuous action as a true/false. The entire question makes a full on likely incorrect assumption and assuming it is not true, neither a 'yes' or a 'no' answer to this is accurate. It is designed to inflame passions and not find out any useful information.

  11. In Spanish, the "g" must be read as a "j" (aspirated) when next to an E or a I. So, "lógica" would be something like "loh-hee-kah". Thanks for your work 🙂

  12. (Just venting) I cannot make this up! Today I was on the tube having a discussion with a dumb girl who was getting on the "everything is opinion/belief" train (and she strongly believes in God and the Bible, so it's weird to see a christian be a dumbass relativist). Anyways, I was very frustrated, because even with the example of gravity she would not come to her senses. I told her to jump off a building and she was like "But we believe in gravity."…
    Anyway… two men (one of them, old) eventually came and sat next to us and thought somehow the discussion was their business.They were agreeing with her retarded positions! I got to my station so I got up and those men did too. The girl remained. After we got out, they proclaimed once more that I had the right to my opinion (which just annoys the hell out of me, because of how retarded that is). After that they straight up told me I was BULLYING her!!! Facepalm of my life. Basically saying that my arrogance (as in not accepting her bullshit and also getting frustrated) diminished me? I mean, I guess getting nervous is immature of my part but that only hurts me. And what they meant was not that! If think they meant that resisting her bullshit was rude or something… When did men get this illogical and emotional?… Oh, that's right, gynocentric men protecting women, that's when.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *