Indeed, the syllogism, as it is given in the poem, does not
work, unless the minor premise and the conclusion change places. But one can
argue that Shade, just as Tolstoy, was not concerned with logic (Ivan
Ilyich’s logic is even worse, and Tolstoy knows that, but subjectively
the passage is eminently resonant). The “syllogism”
simply serves to make a valid psychological point (c’est toujours les
autres qui meurent). Perhaps one shouldn’t
generalize, but it’s tempting to say that VN, like Borges, valued ideas
only insofar as they served a subjective aesthetical function.
Regards,
SK
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
[mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf Of Anthony Stadlen
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:40 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] A syllogism and an epitaph
In a message dated 15/02/2007 03:09:01 GMT Standard Time, skb@BOOTLE.BIZ
writes:
God is love
Love is blind
Therefore, God is blind.
No cat has five tails
I am no cat
Therefore, I have five tails.
I hope our editors may allow me to discuss these
"syllogisms", since they help in our discussion of what makes
Shade's "syllogism" false. SKB's account seems unnecessarily
complicated. Shade's "syllogism" is false simply because it has the
form:
All x are M; A is not an x; therefore A is not M.
(It does not matter that x is "other men" and A is "I" and
M is "mortal".)
This is simply a false deduction. One can say only: All x are M; A
is an x; therefore A is M. Or: All x are M; A is not M; therefore A is not an
x.
Of the two "pseudo-syllogisms" above offered by SKB,
only the second is false. The first is perfectly correct, provided that
"love" is understood to mean the same throughout, and that
"blind" is understood throughout as having the meaning it has in
"Love is blind", namely "blind to faults".
If it were true that love is blind, then it would indeed be true
that, if God is love, then God too would be blind, in this sense of not
seeing faults in the beloved.
This conclusion, which has been correctly, syllogistically derived
from the premisses, should make us suspect that one of the premisses is
false. And indeed, the proposition that love is blind is surely false, as one
cannot love without knowing or "seeing" the beloved. Otherwise it is
a fantasy, an infatuation.
Anthony Stadlen
Search the Nabokv-L archive at UCSB
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by
both co-editors.