Hello, dear friends!
Preface
In our century exact knowledge wins all new areas. One of such areas – female logic. The strict statement is in an origin stage. Men’s logic has passed this stage more than two thousand years ago, but the female logic still waits for the Aristotle. Descendants possess a big and honorable task to create systematic course of female logic, to execute her axiomatization, to create the computers operating in a feminine way to logical schemes. We should be limited to the real notes so far. Their task – on a measure of an opportunity to fill oversight of the nature which has deprived of men of congenital ability to use the female logic so necessary in many vital situations.
It is possible to expect reproach that our statement itself is based on female logic. It is necessary to recognize this reproach absolutely inappropriate: the requirement to state Aristotelian logic with the help women’s would sound not better.
Why it in general is perceived as reproach? The derisive and scornful narrow-minded relation to female logic is the cornerstone. Such relation isn’t too surprising: it is, unfortunately, frequent reaction at a meeting with something alien and inaccessible. Also, perhaps, naked islanders laughed loudly in the beginning, pointing a finger on dressed (and armed) Cook’s sailors..
As for the author, he treats the subject quite seriously and respectfully, much more seriously, than can seem at fluent reading of the present composition.
On the basis of own bitter experience the author advises a beginner not to get into conversations with women, without having studied thoroughly present manual. It is the best of all to get previously some preparation on special courses in this subject. Besides major activities, the exercises directed to increase in volume of lungs and strengthening of vocal chords are recommended to listeners of such courses. The continued attention should be paid to all-physical training and a hardening of an organism. Constant medical control is very important.
GENERAL REMARKS
Can be not main, but first rushing to eyes, difference of female logic from men’s consists that it is always applied to a dispute. The men’s logic can be applied to a dispute and to abstract reasoning’s. The female logic is more specialized: being applied in narrower area of thinking, it gives results which considerably surpass all Aristotle could dream of. The men’s logic considers the disputes which have arisen in result of the fact that two persons, going from the general prerequisites, come to various conclusions. In force of the fact that rules of a conclusion are unambiguous one of them is right, and another has made a logical mistake and who is right and who – No, it is possible to find out, regardless on faces.
The female logic is applied to any disputes and therefore can quite happen that each of debaters is right. There is even a special expression for designation of a similar situation: «You are right in own way» . Such situation, certainly, can’t take place if rules of a conclusion are unambiguous. Words you are right in your way it is necessary to understand so: applying rules of a conclusion as you do it, you will appear the rights or from the prerequisites you draw a conclusion truly, but i had another conclusion.
At the current state of science we can’t answer a question who will win in the dispute based on female logic. The present edition, hope, we will help future researchers to find the formulation of the answer if it principle is possible. Example:
- Lisa is six years old, Nick – four years. Despite so tender age, they use female logic.
- Lisa: I will go to the uncle James, and I won’t take you!
- Nick: And I will go without you!
- Lisa: And I will tie you in the room by the rope.
- Nick: And I will tear a rope and will go.
- Lisa: And I will lock a door!
- Nick: And I will break a door!
- Lisa: And I will make the iron door!
- Nick: And I will get out from ia window!
- Lisa: And I will close up a window by iron!!!
- Nick: I will break a wall!!!
- Lisa: And I will lock you in the iron room!!!
Nick in terms of female logic could object, having only passed into other plane (see the corresponding section), and he isn’t able to do it. He needs only to begin to cry what Lisa also tried to obtain. But why Nick has got into so stalemate? It is possible to notice that the course of a conversation was defined not by(with) in what interlocutors dispersed, and in what they agreed. Lisa has assumed that Nick can break any nonferrous objects, and has kept an opportunity to create any iron. Though it has also not been directly told, Nick agreed with it and in a conversation made the same assumptions. More detail this part of female logic is discussed at the end of notes.
Let’s provide several simple rules of private character which helped to learn in many important cases who will appear the rights in the dispute based on female logic.
The statement which was left without objection is proved.
Doesn’t matter for what reason of an objection hasn’t followed. For example, if to state in a row with the high speed of 5 – 10 judgments, then it is possible to tell with confidence that some of them will be left without answer. If judgment is followed by an insult, then answer with the most part an insult, but not for a judgment which becomes proved if only the reciprocal insult isn’t stronger than initial. From here it is clear that force of the applied arguments has to increase. (Below we will have an opportunity profoundly to investigate this question.) It is possible to leave the statement without answer, having run out from the room in time, or, at the worst, having clamped ears. The last gesture has to be done rather accurately. If you, say, close previously ears cotton wool, then your interlocutor will consider that her arguments have reached you and were left without answer. And she will be right on dispute.
The question of disputes in which interlocutors don’t listen to one another at all is interesting. Possibly, each of them is right in own way.
The given reasoning is enough to make to themselves idea of logical arguments of this kind.
Silence can be interpreted as consent therefore prompt reply is almost always better, than considered. Especially as we will see below, it isn’t necessary to overestimate a role of contents of the answer.
That from debaters behind which there was the last word wins all dispute completely.
For this reason of an objection are always directed against the last statement of the opponent. Really, if it is disproved, then it is enough to stop a conversation. However, to make it can appear not easy.
The second reason for which it is necessary to concentrate the attention only on the last statement consists in it doesn’t make sense that to disprove the penultimate statement: your opponent can always renounce him or to unrecognizability to distort him. Nobody can enter the same river twice. In the same way in a conversation with the lady it is impossible to return into beginning.
There is one interesting investigation: any proof can’t be longer, than one phrase. Longer proofs in practice aren’t applicable. Reasoning from several phrases is applied when the interlocutor is deprived of an opportunity to answer you: it is confused, slowly thinks or in situation, dependent on you. In the latter case the logic orders to insert the phrase from time to time “shut up when I talk to you!” However, in all these cases your correctness is provided.
However, the logician wouldn’t be women’s if even the fundamental rule of the last word couldn’t be called into question. One lady at Bernard Shaw speaks: “I would allow to tell him the last word,. The most important, it not to tell the last word, and remain on the own opinion.”
In female logic each statement can be not only is disproved, but also rejected.
Rejecting the statement, you recognize it senseless and disregard. If you have rejected the last statement of the interlocutor, your penultimate statement remains without answer and, thus, becomes proved. For example, the most thorough reasons can be rejected the words “Well and What?” or “And Could Think Up Nothing More?”.
On an example we will try to show in one of the following paragraphs how arguments are rejected. Here we will notice only that the statements of the interlocutor based on the obvious facts need to be rejected as it is difficult to disprove them even in female logic. Facts… Not all of them tasty to us but to deny them—a sign of low qualification. It is amazing as it is necessary to correct a little him that the fact from the enemy has turned into the ally.
Summing up the result, we will notice that the maintenance of otitis of the interlocutor isn’t important for the lady, and only that circumstance that she has answered is important. And this circumstance is shocking.
Problems of semantics
It must be kept in mind and to constantly remember that statements of ladies are multidimensional. Analyzing any statement of the lady, it is necessary to answer, at least, three questions:
1) What was told by the lady,
2) What the lady wanted to tell,
3) What she has actually told.
Further questions of the second level:
4) What she wanted to tell actually,
5) What she has actually told,
and so on…
Many levels can be. In view of elementary character of the present manual, we will be limited to questions of the first level. For an illustration we will imagine the following scene:
Jane accompanied by the young Duke walks in the park and unexpectedly (for him) asks to tie the satellite to her a lace on a boot. The duke is confused:
– But he is tied! – he speaks.
– Idiot! – Jane answers.
The duke is dumbfounded and offended:
– But than I have deserved,
– Leave me!
The duke leaves, complaining about himself about unclear whims of the lady and about total absence of logic in behavior of women. (“I knew that he is an idiot, but also couldn’t imagine that he is such idiot!” – will tell then Jane to the entrusted servant.)
So, the first statement – a request. What the lady wanted to tell, the Duke hasn’t guessed we will provide to guess to the reader) and therefore actually she has told only what has told. The second statement of Jane didn’t want to offend the Duke but only pointed to him to his mistake. If she hasn’t given vent to the (quite explainable) disappointment, she would speak more softly. But the Duke has taken her literally and therefore actually she has just offended him.
It is possible to assume that in the third statement of Jane wanted to tell: “You understand nothing! Can’t speak to you directly…”, whether entered her intentions to remain one, we don’t know. But, besides, she has been taken literally.
To give to the reader an idea of questions of the second level, let us assume, that all scene has been played. Let’s imagine that before its beginning Jane has noticed the cousin Francesca standing on a balcony, and has wanted show her there can to be what hasn’t happened because of idiocy of the Duke, and maybe what has actually occurred. What, and to whom, actually she wanted to tell when she asked the Duke to tie her lace? Besides she couldn’t but consider that everything, seen by Francesca, right there will become known to the old Marchioness…
By results of polls it is known that refer understanding from his party to number of the main advantages of the partner in life of the lady. However, anywhere it isn’t specified what level this understanding has to reach.
In this composition we won’t penetrate into complex problems of female semantics, and we will understand each statement as it sounds.
General judgments and denial example
In female logic there are general and private judgments. However the rule according to which the general judgment can’t be proved any number of examples, but can be disproved by one contradicting example.
If one example not always completely proves the general judgment, then two examples prove it in any case. Similarly, the contradicting example disproves nothing as it only doesn’t tell one and one example about nothing.
These laws of female logic contradict from the point of view of men’s logic, but nothing means; both of them are fair.
Denial of the general judgment, is also general judgment, but not private. Let’s consider, for example, the following exchange of remarks which repeats from generation to generation, but keeps freshness for interlocutors:
- Mother: You keep thinking only of yourself!
- Daughter: And you want that I always thought only of you!?
Let’s illustrate told about a denial by an example by means of the following dialogue.
- Lillian: Since that I married, you give nothing to me! (General judgment.)
- John: Forgive, darling, but I have presented to you perfume on 1 of May. (The contradicting example.)
Here Lillian can choose among several versions of the answer:
- 1st option:
Lillian: Some nasty Perfume! Has presented once a year and still you put it to yourself in a merit! (The example is rejected.)
- 2nd option:
Lillian: You gave nothing to me, you, probably, presented perfume to the singer. It’s your style! (The example is disproved.)
- 3rd option:
Lillian: I don’t remember any perfume! But even if you also give me once a year something trifle, then unless it can be compared to care which is shown by other husbands!? (An example both will reject, and will disprove.)
Due to the discussed question it is necessary to mention the known law of female logic according to which the exception confirms the rule. This law allows rejecting the contradicting examples, without deliberating.
The logical figure described below is known as “Cleopatra’s turn” though it was applied, undoubtedly, in the Stone Age. It consists in demanding confirmation by an example, and then to accuse of meanness. Let’s look how it is applied in practice:
- Lily: How many you work with us, you all time are rude!
- Britney : well, when I was rude to you!
- Lily: When I have sent you to office yesterday, what you told to me?
- Britney: Is not my business to run in office! Also you have no right to send me!
- Lily: Or when I have opened a window on Friday leaf…, we will allow, you have been chilled – unless so it was necessary to talk like that?
- Britney: Lily, always you carp with some trifles which once were! Directly there is no any life with you!
Repetition of an argument
In men’s logic we have got used that evidential value of any argument doesn’t change at his repetition. If the theorem is proved, then how many times there were doubts, repetition of the proof eliminates them.
In female logic evidential value of an argument at his repetition changes under quite difficult law. Most often she grows, but sometimes and catastrophically falls.
Repeating an argument, it is necessary to give each time to him new verbal expression. It is especially important that insults and curses without which, as we know, a logical reasoning everything is equal that bread without butter, were each time fresh. If you don’t observe this rule, then be sure that after the second or third repetition your argument will be rejected: here, has taken the same! However only green beginners can make this mistake.
Disputes in which each part repeats the arguments are called cyclic. With time the dynamic theory of cyclic disputes will turn into the most interesting chapter of female logic.
QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES
In men’s logic rather few judgments are absolutely true or false irrespective of quantitative estimates. When the man trained in logic says that the boot is black, this man as the rule, has no in a look that the boot absorbs all beams falling on him. But, saying such statement, the man considers a duty to define that he calls in black color. Such researches which aren’t relating on a being to logic usually happen thin and labor-consuming. They strongly slow down process of a reasoning. The female logic is more flexible and doesn’t know similar difficulties. To recognize or not to recognize this color black – it entirely is defined by a goal.
TRANSITION TO OTHER PLANE
This paragraph is devoted to one of the most important abilities of female logic – to transition to other plane. Her have it in a look, saying that in female logic twice two – a stearin candle. The essence of transition to other plane is in that it is as less as possible obvious to change a reasoning subject. Certainly, you have to choose the new plane so that in it could prove the correctness easier. Having made it, you automatically win all dispute including in all planes left by you.
In the most primitive form transition to other plane has an appearance of what Romans called kvaternio terminorum, and Russians designate a proverb: In a garden elder, and in Kiev the uncle. In more developed form, instead of some, very controversial statement with gloss will prove you another – indisputable. Try to object! For this purpose should come back to the ceased words of the interlocutor long ago that as we saw, it is impossible.
It is necessary to have in a look that all variety of a method of transition to other plane can’t be reduced in any way to types of reasoning which are described in Aristotelian logic as wrong.
It is necessary to notice that the plane in which the dispute is conducted sometimes changes with very considerable speed. Speed is so high that the man without special preparation in general can’t understand about what there is a speech. The author with the help of long observations and reflections has opened the nature of this phenomenon. The purpose of a similar dispute – to find who is right and who isn’t right in general, but not on what – or to a private question. Therefore the subject of a dispute doesn’t represent any interest for debaters and is easily lost.
So, for example, it can easily turn out that the most logical answer to the statement “… and here in Bulgaria, on Gold dust, sand still twice more hotly!” there will be a statement “And here we with the HUSBAND were in the winter in Alpsi, so there in general one foreigners…”
Thank you for your attention. to be continued..
