weatherhogge
02-15-2006, 02:19 PM
Greetings all,
I have loved using the logic materials supplied by Memoria Press. My hat is off to Martin Cothran - these materials that you have made are the finest available. I especially appreciate your philosophy of realism that pervades the texts. With all this in mind, I offer the following minor criticism for inclusion in future editions of your logic texts.
On page 1 of *Traditional Logic - book II" it defines the term "disposition" as "location", that is, the relative location of the middle term in the premises. First, this use of the term disposition does not occur in Webster's Dictionary. Secondly, the *Material Logic* book uses an entirely different (and correct, in my estimation) definition "a disposition is a quality that is easily acquired and lost" (page 38 in my edition).
Suggestion for future editions: change "disposition" to "relative location" or something like it in the logic II book. Do others think that this would make more sense?
Sincerely,
Scott Weatherhogge
I have loved using the logic materials supplied by Memoria Press. My hat is off to Martin Cothran - these materials that you have made are the finest available. I especially appreciate your philosophy of realism that pervades the texts. With all this in mind, I offer the following minor criticism for inclusion in future editions of your logic texts.
On page 1 of *Traditional Logic - book II" it defines the term "disposition" as "location", that is, the relative location of the middle term in the premises. First, this use of the term disposition does not occur in Webster's Dictionary. Secondly, the *Material Logic* book uses an entirely different (and correct, in my estimation) definition "a disposition is a quality that is easily acquired and lost" (page 38 in my edition).
Suggestion for future editions: change "disposition" to "relative location" or something like it in the logic II book. Do others think that this would make more sense?
Sincerely,
Scott Weatherhogge