scholarly journals Basic Contradiction in Religion

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-38
Author(s):  
Nabil Nabil
Keyword(s):  
Logical Structure ◽  
Truth Table ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Logical Language ◽  
Fundamental Law ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unity Of Opposites

Contradiction provide insights into theoritical changes in perspective that lead to multi interpretation the law of contradiction contained unity of opposites in the religion is a fundamental law. And it turns out that there are contradiction in the basic religion of islam, namely syahadat as Ahmad Yulden Erwin in his writing, the contradiction are true and empty is the content.“No god but God” if the phrase is to be written in symbolic logical language, it will be form into contradiction of proposition; -p ᴧ p (which has wrong value). If the phrase is to be written in mathematic language, it will be form; -1 + 1 (which value 0). In other words, “syahadat” is a testimony of contradiction and emptiness. Accordingly the meaning, the phrase on a symbolically logical structure will be value wrong and or empty, except , if and if only. Logic can already prove that the contradiction are true and empty it was none other than content.Contradiction is the opposite of tautology, which is a form of statement that has only an example of a wrong substance, or a false statement in everything regardless of truth value of it’s components.[1] To prove whether a statement is a contradiction, there are two ways to prove it. First is using a truth table, if all the options are F or false then they are called contradictions. The truth table of [( p⟹  q ) ˄ p] ˄ ~q 

The Growth of the Layman's Power in the Episcopal Church

1912 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 63-77
Author(s):  
Daniel Dulany Addison
Keyword(s):  
Church Of England ◽  
Episcopal Church ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
Fundamental Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Church

The layman's power in the Episcopal Church is equal to that of the clergy and the bishops. Not only in the management of the parish, as a member or a vestryman, but in the legislation of the Diocese, in the Diocesan Convention, and in the legislation of the Church as a whole, in the General Convention, all action must be taken with his consent. There must be a concurrence between the clerical and lay vote. In the Diocesan Convention each parish is represented by the clergyman and the lay delegates; and in the General Convention, each diocese is represented by four clergymen and four laymen and the bishop. This procedure is such a radical departure from the law of the Church of England, which planted the Church in the Colonies that an inquiry into its development and growth may be of value in analyzing American conditions and tendencies. Dr. S. D. McConnell in his history says: “The provision in its fundamental law for the admission of the laity into the Church's governing body as an independent estate is an arrangement which had not been in operation for fifteen centuries. It was a return to a practice of the most primitive period, and had no contemporary illustration.”

Revenge, I

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Simmons
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Liar Paradox ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Kripke’S Theory Of Truth ◽  
Law Of Excluded Middle ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Liar ◽  
The Liar Paradox ◽  
Excluded Middle

Chapter 8 is the first of two chapters on the phenomenon of revenge paradoxes, paradoxes which, roughly speaking, are constructed out of the very terms of a purported solution. The chapter begins by exploring the difficulties that revenge presents for Kripke’s theory of truth, in either of two versions: a version that admits truth value gaps, and a paracomplete version which rejects the law of excluded middle. The chapter goes on to critically examine Field’s paracomplete theory of truth and its treatment of revenge, arguing that Field’s theory is couched in terms that are artificial and too far removed from natural language. The chapter concludes with a critical discussion of Priest’s dialetheist approach to the Liar paradox, according to which there are true contradictions. It is argued that Priest’s theory is itself subject to revenge paradoxes.

Pertanggungjawaban Pidana terhadap Notaris yang Membuat Keterangan Palsu dalam Akta Otentik

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-106
Author(s):  
Subiyantana Subiyantana ◽  
Nynda Fatmawati Octarina
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
False Information ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Civil Suit ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

Abstrak  Seorang notaris terkadang tanpa diketahuinya ada keterangan palsu yang disampaikan para pihak, yang kemudian menjadi dasar pembuatan akta autentik. Perlu dikaji dan dianalisis pertanggungjawaban pidana notaris atas akta yang dibuat berdasarkan keterangan palsu serta mengkaji dan menganalisis akibat hukum yang timbul terhadap akta notaris yang didasarkan pada keterangan palsu.Notaris dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap akta yang dibuat olehnya berdasarkan apa yang dilihat, disaksikan, dan dialaminya dalam suatu perbuatan hukum jika secara sengaja atau lalai, notaris membuat akta palsu sehingga merugikan pihak lain. Pertanggungjawaban secara pidana, seorang notaris harus memenuhi unsur-unsur: melakukan tindak pidana; memiliki kemampuan untuk bertanggung jawab; dengan kesengajaan atau kealpaan; dan tidak ada alasan pemaaf. Terhadap akta notaris yang dibuat berdasarkan keterangan palsu tidak dengan sendirinya mengakibatkan akta tersebut batal demi hukum. Para pihak yang dirugikan dengan keberadaan akta seperti itu harus mengajukan gugatan perdata ke pengadilan untuk membatalkan akta tersebut. Pertanggungjawaban pidana notaris perlu diatur dalam UUJN yang akan datang.  Kata Kunci:Notaris, Pidana, Perbuatan Melawan Hukum   Abstract  A notary sometimes without knowing there is a false statement submitted by the parties, which then becomes the basis for making an authentic deed. It is necessary to study and analyze the criminal liability of notaries for deeds made based on false information as well as to study and analyze the legal consequences arising from notary deeds based on false information. The notary can be held liable for criminal responsibility for the deed made by him based on what he has seen, witnessed and experienced in a legal act if intentionally or negligently, the notary makes a fake deed so that it harms other parties. For criminal responsibility, a notary must fulfill the following elements: committing a criminal act; have the ability to be responsible; intentionally or negligently; and there are no excuses. A notarial deed based on false information does not automatically result in the deed being null and void. The parties who are aggrieved by the existence of such a deed must file a civil suit to the court to cancel the deed. The criminal liability of notaries needs to be regulated in the upcoming UUJN.  Keywords : Notary, Criminal, Act against the law    

scholarly journals Case Study of False Statement in Notarial Deed in the Perspective of the Law on Notary Position

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 524
Author(s):  
Annisa Khairul ◽  
Elwi Danil ◽  
Aria Zurnetti
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Official ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Complete Proof ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

A notary is assigned as a general official who makes a deed in which the deed issued by the notary is a perfect, strongest, and most complete proof that can guarantee legal certainty. Therefore, a notary must carry out his/her position in accordance with his/her authority as a public official as stipulated in the Law. This thesis applies a normative juridical approach and uses data sources which include primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials obtained through literature and field studies using interview guideline and field observation. The research that had been conducted found that the legal consequences for notarial deed containing false statements from appearers are that the party who feels disadvantaged by the existence of the deed can file a lawsuit in a civil court so the judge can decide to cancel the deed. Thus, the deed no longer has legal force because it has been declared legally flawed and null and void by law. The notary’s liability for the deed containing the false statement from appearer is in terms of administrative liability, civil liability, and criminal liability. The form of criminal sanction imposed on the appearer who gave a false statement for the authentic deed to the notary is that the appearer will be threatened with punishment in accordance with the provisions of Article 266 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code; thus, the appearer deserves to be given a prison sentence. In addition, the form of civil sanction imposed on the appearer who gives false statements for authentic deeds to notaries is in the form of giving compensation to the injured party.

Platonic Myths and Straussian Lies: The Logic of Persuasion

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-115
Author(s):  
Kenneth Royce Moore
Keyword(s):  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Contemporary Philosophy ◽  
Crucial Issue ◽  
Central Interest ◽  
Heideggerian Phenomenology ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Many ◽  
Noble Lie

This article undertakes to examine the reception of Platonic theories of falsification in the contemporary philosophy of Leo Strauss and his adherents. The aim of the article is to consider the Straussian response to, and interaction with, Platonic ideas concerning deception and persuasion with an emphasis on the arguments found in the Laws. The theme of central interest in this analysis is Plato’s development of paramyth in the Laws. Paramyth entails the use of rhetorical language in order to persuade the many that it is to their advantage to obey certain laws. It does so without explaining in detail why a given law is ethically correct and its use assumes that the audience, on the whole, is not capable of understanding the finer philosophical underpinnings of the law. The so-called ‘noble lie’ of the Republic is also considered in this context. The crucial issue, for Plato if not for Strauss, is whether or not an instance of falsification, however minor, for the purposes of persuasion contains ‘truth-value’, that is, whether it is morally justifiable in terms of ends and means. In terms of Strauss’s reception of Plato, such issues as ancient Hebrew mysticism, Medieval Jewish and Islamic scholarship and Heideggerian Phenomenology figure in the argument. Ultimately, the article finds that Strauss and his followers have constructed a particular view of Platonic ideas that, while unique, is not compatible with their original signification.

scholarly journals The constitutionality of the legal regime of the sacred goods from the perspective of the Law no 489/2006 regarding religious freedom and the general regime of the cults

2020 ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
COSTICĂ CIOCAN
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Fundamental Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Way

This paper addresses the legal regime of sacred goods from the perspective of the immunity from distraint and of the fact of not being subject to a statute of limitations they enjoy and the way in which granting this protection could conflict with the fundamental law.

Hyperclassical Logic (A.K.A. If Logic) and its Implications for Logical Theory

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaakko Hintikka
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Life ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Truth Table ◽  
Important Task ◽  
Logical Theory ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Logical Language ◽  
If Logic ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Image Position

Let us assume that you are entrusted by UNESCO with an important task. You are asked to devise a universal logical language, a Begriffsschrift in Frege's sense, which is to serve the purposes of science, business and everyday life. What requirements should such a “conceptual notation” satisfy? There are undoubtedly many relevant desiderata, but here I am focusing on one unmistakable one. In order to be a viable lingua universalis, your language must in any case be capable of representing any possible configuration of dependence and independence between different variables. For if such a configuration is possible in principle, there is no guarantee that it might not one day show up among the natural, human or social phenomena we have to study.But how are dependencies and independencies between variables expressed in our familiar logical notation? Every logician worth his or her truth-table knows the answer. Dependencies between two variables are expressed by dependencies between the quantifiers to which they are bound. For instance, inthe variable y depends on x, while inz depends on x but not on y, while u depends on both x and y.But how is the dependence of a quantifier on another one expressed in familiar logical languages? Obviously by occurring in its scope, indicated by the pair of parentheses following it (cf. here Hintikka [1997]). But the nesting of scopes is a transitive and antisymmetrical relation which allows branching only in one direction. Hence other kinds of structures of dependence and independence between variables are not representable in the received logical notation. Such previously inexpressible structures form the subject matter of what has been referred to as independence-friendly (IF) logic.

Note on truth-tables

1950 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Kalicki
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Truth Table ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
Truth Tables

In this paper a method will be described which is intended to exhibit some relationships between sets of tautologies determined by truth-tables. This method is an attempt to form an algebra of truth-tables. The results sketched below are restricted to sets of tautologies determined by truth-tables with a finite number of elements and involving a single binary connective Δ. However, most of the results can be easily extended to the case of Tarski's logical matrix and even to a more general case.We denote by S() the set of all tautologies (-tautologies) according to a given truth-table . Let describe a binary connective Δ. Then Δ()(x, y) stands for the truth-value of ΔPQ, when P has the truth-value x and Q has the truth-value y. If no ambiguity may arise we write Δ(x, y) or Δ() for Δ()(x, y).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document