Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hawkman" data-source="post: 445334" data-attributes="member: 23715">PLATO &amp; SOCRATES-1The Lord Plato is guarding a bridge over a river when Socrates appears. Socrates begs to be allowed passage.Plato bellows &quot; If the next thing you say is true I will allow passage, but if the next thing you say is false I will throw you in the water&quot;Socrates being clever says;&quot; You will throw me in the water&quot;If Plato does indeed throw Socrates in the water, then Socrates spoke truly and shouldn&#039;t have been thrown in, but if he doesn&#039;t throw him in, Socrates spoke falsely and should have gone in!Either way Plato is stuffed!!But hang on, Plato cannot fulfil his promise, it&#039;s logically impossible, so he has no obligation to keep his promise, and assuming free will can throw Socrates in the river if he pleases.It is argued that statements about future intentions cannot have a truth or false value. Socrates saying &quot; You will throw me in the water &quot; is neither true or false.However Socrates could have said something avoiding future dependant language that would have avoided a dowsing in the river. What?Click below for answer.[SPOILER]All Socrates has to do is clarify Plato&#039;s intentions.Statement &#039;S&#039; &quot; If I speak truly you will not throw me in the river, if I speak falsely you will throw me in the river&quot;If &#039;S&#039; is true, then Socrates has spoken truly and won&#039;t get thrown in, but if &#039; S&#039; is false then Socrates has spoken falsely and it&#039;s false that Plato will throw him in. So Socrates escapes a dunking whatever Plato wants assuming Plato&#039;s integrity[/SPOILER]PLATO &amp; SOCRATES-2Plato has taught Socrates to become a top lawyer and has generously waived his fee, for now. Socrates will pay the tuition fee when he wins his first case. Months pass and Socrates has not been engaged in any cases. Plato anxious for his fee, sues Socrates arguing that if the court decides for him Socrates must pay up, and if it decides for Socrates then that&#039;s a case won by Socrates so he&quot;ll still have to pay.Socrates argues that if the court decides against him in favour of Plato then he hasn&#039;t yet won a case and needn&#039;t pay, and if it decides for him Plato&#039;s case is thrown out and he still won&#039;t have to pay. Who is right? What should the court do?Click below for answer;[SPOILER]The court should not find for Plato, simply because at the time of the lawsuit Socrates hasn&#039;t won a case. However this changes afterwards as Socrates has now won, and Plato could instigate a second lawsuit that he will surely win.[/SPOILER]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hawkman, post: 445334, member: 23715"] [B]PLATO & SOCRATES-1[/B] The Lord Plato is guarding a bridge over a river when Socrates appears. Socrates begs to be allowed passage. Plato bellows " If the next thing you say is true I will allow passage, but if the next thing you say is false I will throw you in the water" Socrates being clever says; " You will throw me in the water" If Plato does indeed throw Socrates in the water, then Socrates spoke truly and shouldn't have been thrown in, but if he doesn't throw him in, Socrates spoke falsely and should have gone in! Either way Plato is stuffed!! But hang on, Plato cannot fulfil his promise, it's logically impossible, so he has no obligation to keep his promise, and assuming free will can throw Socrates in the river if he pleases. It is argued that statements about future intentions cannot have a truth or false value. Socrates saying " You will throw me in the water " is neither true or false. However Socrates [B]could[/B] have said something avoiding future dependant language that would have avoided a dowsing in the river. What? Click below for answer. [SPOILER] All Socrates has to do is clarify Plato's intentions. Statement 'S' " If I speak truly you will not throw me in the river, if I speak falsely you will throw me in the river" If 'S' is true, then Socrates has spoken truly and won't get thrown in, but if ' S' is false then Socrates has spoken falsely and it's false that Plato will throw him in. So Socrates escapes a dunking whatever Plato wants assuming Plato's integrity[/SPOILER] [B]PLATO & SOCRATES-2[/B] Plato has taught Socrates to become a top lawyer and has generously waived his fee, for now. Socrates will pay the tuition fee when he wins his first case. Months pass and Socrates has not been engaged in any cases. Plato anxious for his fee, sues Socrates arguing that if the court decides for him Socrates must pay up, and if it decides for Socrates then that's a case won by Socrates so he"ll still have to pay. Socrates argues that if the court decides against him in favour of Plato then he hasn't yet won a case and needn't pay, and if it decides for him Plato's case is thrown out and he still won't have to pay. Who is right? What should the court do? Click below for answer; [SPOILER]The court should not find for Plato, simply because at the time of the lawsuit Socrates hasn't won a case. However this changes afterwards as Socrates has now won, and Plato could instigate a second lawsuit that he will surely win.[/SPOILER] [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =