Minsan ko lang iisipin na nakawala na ako sa kahong ito, pero ito na naman ang isang mas malaking kahon -- kinukulong na naman ako maghapon, magdamag. Hindi ako magtatakang may mas malaking kahon pang naghihintay lumamon sa akin kapag nakawala ulit ako rito.
Nakawala ulit ako rito. Patuloy akong ikinakahon. Patuloy din naman akong lumalaban. Hindi mo pwedeng sabihin na wala akong ginagawa o nagpapakahon kasi ako dahil kung gayon, hindi na sana patuloy na lumalaki ang kahong kinapapalooban ko ngayon. E di sana, hindi ko nabatid na may kahong naghihintay sa akin 'pag nabutas ko ulit ang kahong ito.
Nabubutas ang kahon. Minsan hindi mo rin maiwasang maisip kung ano ang pagkakaiba ng karton sa kahon. Halos wala namang pinagkaiba. Tinatakan lang ng National Bookstore na "carton" 'yung bagay na iyon, karton na bigla ang tawag ng lahat. Mas mura ang kahon kaysa karton. "Limampiso" lang sa tindahan o sari-sari store. P16.75 sa school supplies store. Alin ang mas madaling lumambot 'pag nabasa -- karton o kahon?
Karton at kahon. Nakakita ako sa Papemelroti ng kahon. Hindi na kwadrado. Iba-iba na ang hugis -- may bilog, may parihaba, may tatsulok, may pang-long neck, may pang-alahas, kung anu-ano. Kahit ano pang gawing disenyo niyan, kahon pa rin 'yan. Parang ikaw, kahit anong ayos mo... Mas mahal ang kahong bilog na may kaunting ribbon kaysa sa kanto-kantong kahon.
Sa may kanto, narinig ko ang nag-uusap na mag-ama, "Anak, sa sobrang dami ng kanto sa mukha mo, kulang na lang ay tambay!" Pero, hindi nga, luminga pa akong konti sa kalye, nakita ko ang isang pamilyang binubuo ng limang miyembro -- si Tatay, si Nanay, si Ate, si Kuya at si Bunso -- sa bangketa, nakahiga at pinagkakasya ang mga sarili sa ilang piraso ng mga pinatag at piniping kahon.
Ang kahon, kahit anong hugis, kahit anong gamit -- mananatiling kahon.
____________
*PETITIO PRINCIPII: circular reasoning, circular argument
(basahin dito)
1 comment:
I. Petitio Principii: (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question) in general, the fallacy of assuming as a premiss a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion.
1. The least convincing kind of petitio principii is the repetition of the same words in the same order in both premiss and conclusion.. Generally, such an argument would not be misleading and would only be given in unusual circumstances, e.g., the speaker is very tired, talking to a child, or talking to a subordinate. Two examples follow.
"Dear Friend, a man who has studied law to its highest degree is a brilliant lawyer, for a brilliant lawyer has studied law to its highest degree." Oscar Wilde, De Profundis.
2. A more common kind of petitio principii is the transformation of the conclusion into a premiss using logical or grammatical principles. For example ...
"You know that God is a just and loving God because God is God and cannot be unjust or unloving."
3. A third kind of petitio prinicpii is the use of an intermediate step in shifting to the same meaning from the premiss to the conclusion. A linking of premisses and conclusions return to the beginning. For example ...
"The soul is simple because it is immortal, and it must be immortal because it's simple."
4. The most difficult kind of petitio principii to identify is the kind where the premiss and the conclusion have the same "propositional content." I.e., the statements are suitable paraphrases of each other, and each depends upon the other for its truth.
The following example is a description of a petitio principii committed by Engel:
"A law has been named after Engel in light of this work. Engel's law states that 'the poorer the individual, the family or a people, the greater must be the percentage of the income needed for the maintenance of physical sustenance, and of this a greater proportion must be allowed for food.' It is odd to find this as a law, since Engel had used the proportion of outgoings on food as the measure of material standard of living." Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 140.
The reason petitio principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can be deceptive. A statement cannot prove itself. A premiss must have a different source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth from that of the conclusion.
FROM: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html
Post a Comment