Describing Philosophers A,B,C & D: Beliefs & Insights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ursole
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a logical puzzle involving four philosophers (A, B, C, and D) and their claims about their own states of sanity and philosophical type. The participants explore the implications of each philosopher's statements based on the definitions of pure, applied, sane, and insane philosophers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that A's claim of being insane implies he must be lying, suggesting he is applied.
  • Others propose that B's assertion of being pure leads to the conclusion that he is sane, regardless of whether he is pure or applied.
  • It is suggested that if C claims to be applied, he must be insane, as a pure philosopher would not make such a claim.
  • Some participants conclude that D is pure because he claims to be sane, which aligns with the definitions provided.
  • A later reply challenges the logical reasoning presented, asserting that A's claim cannot be logically sound if he is truly insane.
  • Another participant defends the logic of the argument, emphasizing that all philosophers believe themselves to be sane based on the definitions given.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in recalling the wording of the puzzle, indicating the complexity of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the philosophers' statements, leading to multiple competing views on the identities of A, B, C, and D. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the correct classifications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of definitions and logical consistency in interpreting the statements, but some assumptions remain unexamined, leading to potential ambiguities in the conclusions drawn.

Ursole
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
You are given that:
Pure philosophers always tell the truth concerning their beliefs.
Applied philosophers always lie concerning their beliefs.
Sane philosophers beliefs are always correct.
Insane pilosophers beliefs are always incorrect.

Four philosophers {A,B,C,D}) have the following conversation:
A - I am insane
B - I am pure
C - I am applied
D - I am sane
A - C is pure
B - D is insane
C - B is applied
D - C is sane

Describe A,B,C, and D.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A says "I am insane." Now, no person can really think they're insane. A sane person will know they're sane, and an insane person will incorrectly believe themselves to be sane. Since no person can believe themselves to be insane, A must be lying, so A is applied. At this point, A could be sane or insane.

B says "I am pure." If B is pure, then he really believes he's pure, so he's sane. If he's applied, he believes he lied and believes he's applied, so again, he must be sane. B is sane, and could be pure or applied.

If C is pure, and really think's he's applied, he must be insane. Otherwise, if he's applied, and really thinks he's pure, he's wrong again and must be insane. C is insane.

D is pure, because everyone truly thinks their sane, so he must be telling the truth. Also, it's the only thing left after the first "round" of clues.

A - applied
B - sane
C - insane
D - pure

Now, working from the bottom, D truly thinks C is sane, which is wrong, so D is insane. B is sane, so he knows D is insane, and he says it, so he's pure. B is pure, and C is insane, so C thinks B is applied. Since C says B is applied, he's telling what he believes, so C is pure. A says C is pure, but since A is applied, he really thinks C is applied. But C is pure, so A is wrong, and thus insane. So:

A - applied insane
B - pure sane
C - pure insane
D - pure insane
 
A = Applied, Sane
B = Pure, Sane
C = Pure, Sane
D = Applied, Sane

Likely not to be right but I did it quickly.

The Bob (2004 ©)
 
AKG said:
A says "I am insane." Now, no person can really think they're insane. A sane person will know they're sane, and an insane person will incorrectly believe themselves to be sane. Since no person can believe themselves to be insane, A must be lying,

Captain, this is not logical. [It is a personal opinion.]

.
 
Ursole said:
Captain, this is not logical. [It is a personal opinion.]
Huh? No, it's perfectly logical. If A is sane, then A correctly knows himself to be sane. If A is insane, A incorrectly "knows" himself to be sane. Therefore, A necessarily "knows" himself to be sane. Q.E.D.

EDIT: I can see that my wording seemed rather colloquial, and may have thrown you off, but it was still a logically rigourous and sound argument. All philosophers believe themselves to be sane (based on the riddle's definitions of "philosopher" and "sane").
 
Sorry, AKG. I forgot the wording of the puzzle. :redface:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
820
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
974