Here’s what I saw:
Logic = content if Hegelian.
If not Hegelian, Logic does not = content.
Logic = norms.
What kind of norms?
The norms of reasoning.
What kind of reasoning?
Inferential reasoning are rules.
What kind of rules?
Rules that determine validity.
What kind of validity?
The validity of conclusions.
For a conclusion, what are my choices?
You can choose between three:
a) Conclusion is valid
b) Conclusion is not valid
c) Conclusion is possibly true.
Is there anything else that constrains the conclusion?
So then, what does logic have to do with this?
Logic is the codification of the rules of inference.
What is this logic used with?
It is used with language.
It is used for a game.
What kind of game?
A game of give and take.
What kind of give and take?
The give and take of reasons.
Ok, what’s a reason?
…. [insert algebra] …
Norms are necessary.
What kinds of norms are necessary?
The norms for conclusions.
Why are they necessary?
If you don’t have norms for conclusions then everything = true.
When philosophy is replaced by theraputitic spirituality, everything = true = nothing = true
Everything made sense except the Algebra, and the section on the necessity for norms for basing conclusions on, along with the everything=true=nothing=true formulation and the relationship between philosophy and theraputic spirituality. That didn’t make much sense at all.
The rest of it was fine. It’s a game. I understand that. My 10 year old nephew is always inventing rules for new games I have to learn and they’re about as strange as the rules for this game, although some of them make sense.
Your reasons for why I should buy your product and play your game are still unconvincing. You still have my ears though. I’ll put a pot of coffee on. You have my interest but you’ve lost me when it came to your conclusions. They didn’t seem to follow from your earlier definitions. They were nice definitions by the way until you attempted to define Reason.
Also, the premise and conclusion seem to have little to do with the defining of terms.