Tautologies, trivial & non-trivial, was Re:[Fwd: Position

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Charles is of course correct. I guess what I thought was a
truism ("Everyone knows that there exist both trivial and
non-trivial tautologies") is in fact false. If you check, you will
find that careful writers very frequently specify whether a
tautology they refer to is trivial or non-trivial. Roughly, a
tautology is non-trivial if it brings out relationships which
would otherwise go unnoted. The following tautology is
anything but trivial:

            a+b=b+a

Or

            IF a+b=b+a, THEN 1+2=2+1

The tautology "Capitalism will collapse" is another way of
saying "All sublunary existence is mutable." I forget the exact
words of the cliche, but it is an old one. The problem with
trivial tautologies is the illusion they create of profundity.
And usually, unlike non-trivial tautologies, trivial tautologies
conceal rather than emphasize their tautological nature. This
can lead to real confusion (as it did in the present case)
when someone tries to doubt the tautology (as in Doug sneering
at the supposed originality of "Capitalism will collapse") Doug
must have assumed that the tautology, "Capitalism will collapse"
affirmed the non-tautology: "Socialism will triumph."

Note that all syllogisms are tautological -- the conclusion merely
restates what was already present in the premises.

Carrol


Carrol

Charles Brown wrote:

> If you are implying that there are no non-trivial tautologies, isn't mathematics all about non-trivial tautologies ? All equations are tautologies, no ?
>
> CB
>
> >>> khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/29/00 07:02PM >>>
> Is this in contrast to non-trivial tautologies?
>      Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > > M A Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > >But capitalism will collapse anyway.
> > >
> > > Right. Where have I heard that one before?
> >
> > Actually the prediction was made by many old guys millenia ago
> > before capitalism was ever heard of. You know, the old stuff about
> > the rise and fall of this or that. ONe doesn't have to be even remotely
> > a marxist to know this. Now *dating* it -- that's something else.
> >
> > And of course it is also another quesion whether the collapse will
> > be followed by socialism or barbarianism. But who can seriously
> > object to the abstract proposition that "Capitalism will collapse."
> > It seems a rather trivial tautology.
> >
> > Carrol