At Thanksgiving, we were discussing kinds of blogs one might have, and my brother said, "If something has been done, it surely has been blogged."
This led me to produce the following proof:
(1) If something has been done, it has been blogged. [apodictic]
(2) If not-blogging has been done, it has been blogged. [Instantiation of (1), which has universal form]
(3) If not-blogging has been done, there is blogging of not-blogging. [Rewriting of (2)]
(4) Blogging of not-blogging is a contradiction in terms. [Properties of negation--if you are blogging, you are not not-blogging]
(5) Therefore not-blogging has not been done. [(3), (4) modus tollens]
(6) Therefore all activities are blogging.
So we can all stop pretending to have real lives now. Hooray!
Posted by Matt Weiner at December 2, 2005 08:32 AMi seem to recall you blogging about not-blogging at some point. furthermore, i do not have a real life. (unless talking to cats counts.)
Posted by: corey at December 2, 2005 08:43 AMCan I use this as an example in class how confusing use and mention can get you into trouble?
Posted by: Richard Zach at December 2, 2005 11:01 AMSure. I think it might be interesting to point out exactly where the fallacy is. Or do I mean how many fallacies there are?
Posted by: Matt Weiner at December 2, 2005 02:11 PMHaven't we all blogged about not-blogging at some point?
Posted by: bitchphd at December 2, 2005 10:05 PMWell, that's one of the fallacies. I thought of turning it into a blogito, as in Descartes' argument that I cannot doubt that I doubt, because the very doubt undermines itself. Maybe that will work. I cannot blog that I do not blog, because in doing so I in fact blog. So blogging is my essential nature.
Posted by: Matt Weiner at December 2, 2005 11:29 PMThis comment marks the place of a not comment I made earlier.
Posted by: eb at December 3, 2005 02:36 AM