Life is Worth Living
Source
UPDATE: The author, Chris Tweedt, responded to my comments, so I have additional changes of the reconstruction at the very bottom.
Original Reconstruction
Time can be wasted.
If it can be wasted, it can be used well.
If it can be used well, it is an asset.
If it is an asset, it is worth having.
If it is worth having, life is worth living.
So, life is worth living.
Commentary
The first thing I notice is that there are implicit conclusions that are not written out. In general, I think it is a good habit to write out all our propositions even though it makes the reconstruction less concise. Once we insert the implicit conclusions in their proper place, every conclusion should be directly preceded by the minimum number of necessary premises that belong to that particular argument (rule P1).
It should look like this.
Time can be wasted.
If it can be wasted, it can be used well.
Therefore, time can be used well.
If it can be used well, it is an asset.
Therefore, time is an asset.
If it is an asset, it is worth having.
Therefore, time is worth having.
If it is worth having, life is worth living.
So, life is worth living.
The next thing I notice is that the conditional is not listed first, so let us change that by swapping 1 and 2, according to rule L3.
If it can be wasted, it can be used well.
Time can be wasted.
Therefore, time can be used well.
If it can be used well, it is an asset.
Therefore, time is an asset.
If it is an asset, it is worth having.
Therefore, time is worth having.
If it is worth having, life is worth living.
So, life is worth living.
The way the argument is written suggests that “it” refers to “something” such that “If it can be wasted” means “If something can be wasted.” I think the latter is clearer, so I will make the following adjustments:
If something can be wasted, it can be used well.
Time can be wasted.
Therefore, time can be used well.
If something can be used well, it is an asset.
Therefore, time is an asset.
If something is an asset, it is worth having.
Therefore, time is worth having.
If something is worth having, life is worth living.
So, life is worth living.
I also recommend clarifying which conclusions follow from which premises because (1) it makes the logic clearer and (2) it is helpful when trying to figure out if the main conclusion follows all the premises. While we will not have to follow the trail of logic backward (rule P2) for this argument because it is sufficiently direct, I think it is generally a good rule.
Finally, I will replace “so” with “therefore” simply because I prefer it.
We now have the final version of the reconstruction.
Final Version
If something can be wasted, it can be used well.
Time can be wasted.
Therefore, time can be used well. (This follows 1 and 2.)
If something can be used well, it is an asset.
Therefore, time is an asset. (This follows 3 and 4.)
If something is an asset, it is worth having.
Therefore, time is worth having. (This follows 5 and 6.)
If something is worth having, life is worth living.
Therefore, life is worth living. (This follows 7 and 8.)
Update
After sharing this post, the author of the reconstruction, Chris Tweedt, clarified that the conditionals were not meant to be universal generalizations; rather, they were only meant to apply to time itself. To incorporate this change, I could simply keep the original language but have the conditional as the first premise, but that would mean it would be unclear what the “it” was referring to. It would look like this.
If it can be wasted, it can be used well.
Time can be wasted.
Now, using “it” in the original reconstruction did not suffer from this problem because “Time can be wasted” was stated first, which then made it clear that the “it” in the original second premise was referring to time. But I want to keep the conditional as the first premise per rule L3, and in order to do that and be clear, I will replace every “something” with “time.”
So, for example, instead of
If something can be wasted, it can be used well.
I will be
If time can be wasted, it can be used well.
We now have the final, final version.
Final, Final Version
If time can be wasted, it can be used well.
Time can be wasted.
Therefore, time can be used well. (This follows 1 and 2.)
If time can be used well, it is an asset.
Therefore, time is an asset. (This follows 3 and 4.)
If time is an asset, it is worth having.
Therefore, time is worth having. (This follows 5 and 6.)
If time is worth having, life is worth living.
Therefore, life is worth living. (This follows 7 and 8.)
This post is aesthetically graceful (I will say that). Very sublime. Completely useless, though far more personal because of it. Do not think my previous sentence is a criticism, 21st-century individual, but a glowing remark.
Nevertheless, I do question some one of the propositions made in the construction of this piece, however. Why does it follow that life is worth living from the fact that time is worth having? Do you perhaps mean that simple survival should be an end in and of itself? Is that not a tragic end to the human comedy?
If you seek to imply that life is worth living, as in experiencing, because it can be spent well, you create a non-sequitur. Time is valuable and time can be spent well. What determines how time is spent well? If you want to suggest that living, as in living life is the ultimate ideal founded on the axiom of chrono-waste I would advise you to find a logical framework that can provide an ironclad explanation as to what defines life's value.
P.S. You did not consider the fact that time could have negative value and could therefore be a liability, creating a negative argument.
P.P.S The more holes I make, the less happy I am with my initial praise. Keep doing what you do, and perhaps, one day it will be perfected.
P.P.P.S I have subscribed because this format interests me.
(From an artist to another) Au revoir!
Excellent - thanks.
My two cents is that it is question-begging. Consider that those who reject the conclusion should reject P2 (time can be wasted).
🦉