>>63959227I was catching up on the last thread and saw this and I think you don't really understand logic. The existence of the double implication operator <=> doesn't imply that any two premises are connected by it, that is itself one of of your premises.
Really your argument is:
P: Gura is burnt out
Q: Gura finds streaming unfulfilling
1. P <=> Q
2. P v Q
Thus: P ^ Q
(<=> is double implication, v is OR, ^ is AND)
This argument is logically VALID (if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true) but logical validity says nothing about the truth of the argument, your premises have to actually be true for the argument to be SOUND.
For example: 1. If the sky is green, then Gura is a dog. 2. The sky is green. Thus: Gura is a dog.
This is a logically valid argument of the same structure as yours, but it's obviously not true.
If premise 1 is incorrect, that doesn't somehow magically spawn two new material implications (P => Q and Q=>P), it could just as well mean that P and Q are unrelated.
As for the content of the premise, of course it's possible to find something unfulfilling without being burnt out. I don't feel fulfilled from shitposting on the internet, but that doesn't mean I'm burnt out from it. And I do get burnt out from school even though I find education to be fulfilling.
I'm going to sleep now so I can't argue with you about it, but just remember not to mix up logical validity with truth. It's easy to come to the wrong conclusions with a good method if the method relies on assumptions.
