About logic

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

Peruse the archive of any online philosophy forum.

If there was ever a question not so inclined to beg the question of what exactly the question is, do let us know.

I have two books on the subject, both short. One is Foundations of Logic and Mathematics, by Rudolf Carnap, and the other Language truth, and logic, by Alfred Jules Ayers. Both deal with language and syntax to a high degree.
Now, I don't know what question is begging, but in the interest of finding what is what at an elementary level there is no better place to start than the Syllogism. It is a tool all children seem to use to learn and to catagorize. It is hardly flawless, but it is a beginning. It not only tells what a thing is, but also eliminates, to some extent, what it is not. Until we know how one thing relates to another catagorically we know nothing.

@Fido,

The problem is that an absolutely open question, which is to say a question that does not to some extent predetermine the answer, is a question which will thus allow an infinite variety of answers, any one of which is true or false.

Or put another way, it is only ever possible to discover the truth to the extent that you already know what it looks like in order to find it.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

The problem is that an absolutely open question, which is to say a question that does not to some extent predetermine the answer, is a question which will thus allow an infinite variety of answers, any one of which is true or false.

Or put another way, it is only ever possible to discover the truth to the extent that you already know what it looks like in order to find it.

Reality is always true to itself. Truth is a correct representation of reality, and finding truth means seeing that reality has been correctly conceived of in the representation of it. The only mystery to truth is in finding the pattern, and the reoccuring parts of nature and reality out of so much general phenomenon. The first edible mushroom I ever saw was phenomenal, the second mushroom confirmed that the phenomenon was catagorically identical to others so that the mushroom became fixed as a concept. I then began to see the concept before the mushroom. I had discovered mushroom truth, which is to say that I had a correct concept. And yes, the first mushroom was pointed out to me; and even then, I did not see it, at first.

@Fido,

The mystery is the pointing out.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

The mystery is the pointing out.

Well yes, but as most of what we learn is already known that is hardly unusual. Making new connections, finding new concepts that are true to reality, generally learning as much as possible while keeping insight active; these, in a sense, are what we are made for. We have got to do with what we've got, but we've got a lot to do with.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

The point is that what I know is the premise without which the argument fails to work, the crucial premise being that Sam L Clemens is but one person.

Every person is one person. Everyone is self-identical.
The name, "Sam Clemens" may refer to a number of different people, but how can that possibly mean (whatever that might mean) that Sam Clemens is a number of different people. The name has nothing to do with what is named. If it makes if clearer for you, let's instead of the name "Sam Clemens" simple have, "Sam Clemens-1", "Sam Clemens-2", "Sam Clemens-3", ...."Sam Clemens-n". Each of those "Sam Clemens" is exactly one person. The only problem is that you are mixing up the name with what it names. There are many names, but each of the names is the name of just one person.

@Neshama,

:eek:

The universal problem is that we mix up the name with what it names, the map and the territory.

Life is not algebra, nor is logic.

No matter what the name, Sam L Clemens or Clemens-1, a name is the name of just one person in so far as you say so, if you do, but otherwise perceived as may be.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Every person is one person. Everyone is self-identical.
The name, "Sam Clemens" may refer to a number of different people, but how can that possibly mean (whatever that might mean) that Sam Clemens is a number of different people. The name has nothing to do with what is named. If it makes if clearer for you, let's instead of the name "Sam Clemens" simple have, "Sam Clemens-1", "Sam Clemens-2", "Sam Clemens-3", ...."Sam Clemens-n". Each of those "Sam Clemens" is exactly one person. The only problem is that you are mixing up the name with what it names. There are many names, but each of the names is the name of just one person.

For the sake of logic, an identity only has to be tenative. Once it is established, firmly and without doubt, then it is an axium that it does not change; that A is A, and B is B.

I don't know if I am logical. I do know I am mechanical. I have spent a great deal of time learning a lot of stuff through reading. When some one, anyone, tries to make a statement, a judgement concerning reality, as a truth, or truism, then if there is an exception when compared to what I know, I can point it out. I love aphorisms, and not because they are always true, but often true, and not always illuminating, but often illuminating.

If we say logic has a purpose, and serves that purpose it does not mean it is infallable. The syllogism is seriously weak, yet still effective at what it does, which is to give serious reasoning something to work on -that is, more than a total guess. Insight is essential to discovery, and perhaps an essential part of human intelligence. What is it without scientific method, deduction, and induction? The Syllogism is an informed jump to conclusions. An insight is an informal jump to conclusion. Once there, the fault finding, negative power of logic will help to tell if you are on firm ground.

Most logic seems totally useless to creativity, discovery, or insight. Rather; reason requires a set table before it can break dishes. Kant was very logical, in my opinion, and insightful; yet people of his age called him a great destroyer because of what he did with his logic to metaphysics. But that could have happened anytime in the previous five hundred years if anyone had turned logic loose on what they took first, and foremost, for granted.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

:eek:

The universal problem is that we mix up the name with what it names, the map and the territory.

Life is not algebra, nor is logic.

No matter what the name, Sam L Clemens or Clemens-1, a name is the name of just one person in so far as you say so, if you do, but otherwise perceived as may be.

What you say is true about the maps and the territory; but not true about life. If nature did not behave in a logical fashion we could discover, it would never be predictable, and it is. And if numbers did not accuratly model the bahavior of nature they would be meaningless beyond belief.

Conservation in physics and in math is essentially what identity is in logic. Numbers are not applied uniformly to volume, to weight, and to geometric measure. Rather they are applied conservatively once certain facts are known. To apply numbers to physics really means grasping the conserved qualities you are dealing with. Is it conservation of momentum, conservation of charge, conservation of energy, conservation of mass?

Every single concept, and every word in the dictionary is a conserved quality. If we understand that no matter how long or short a line is the concept of line remains unchanged. Or if we talk about justice in this or that instance and it does not really change the concept of justice; then we get a sense of how to measure reality to determine meaningful change. Much of what philosophy deals with is intangeble, and insensible. Science, which is a part of philosophy, deals with much that can be measured. Just because philosophers and scientist do not think in exactly the same fashion about equality when one can be objectively measured, and the other only infered, does not mean that logic cannot be applied to both. It is the firm, conserved quality, the identity, that reveals the variables that effect our lives. You will have to excuse me if I seem to be floundering. I am beyond my safe depth.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

:eek:

The universal problem is that we mix up the name with what it names, the map and the territory.

Life is not algebra, nor is logic.

No matter what the name, Sam L Clemens or Clemens-1, a name is the name of just one person in so far as you say so, if you do, but otherwise perceived as may be.

"No matter what the name, Sam L Clemens or Clemens-1, a name is the name of just one person in so far as you say so, if you do, but otherwise perceived as may be."

What does that mean? Especially the last 6 words? Try English, please.

Don't each of those tokens of "Clemens" name just one person? If not, why not?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

"No matter what the name, Sam L Clemens or Clemens-1, a name is the name of just one person in so far as you say so, if you do, but otherwise perceived as may be."

What does that mean? Especially the last 6 words? Try English, please.

Don't each of those tokens of "Clemens" name just one person? If not, why not?

My words are standard English, to be found in any ordinary dictionary, usually employed according to established rules of grammar.

None the less there is never an absolute meaning to any word or sentence because our understanding varies, according to the prejudice of experience, the wreckage of our minds that they call education.

In order to purport to agree we have to believe that we understand, never mind we see well enough the want of comprehension. There is no proof of the truth of such an understanding, the general premise to logic, though none the less we rely so much upon it. The practice of logic is therefore fundamentally religious, a ritual we practice in order to worship our own conceit.

Logic is thus indeed "an organized way of going wrong with confidence", so to speak.

Nothing names anything except to agree so, and to the extent that we do.

:cool:

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

Nothing names anything except to agree so, and to the extent that we do.

:cool:

True enough. But once we agree (or his parents agreed) that "Mark Twain" would name Mark Twain, and it was so recorded on his birth certificate, "Mark Twain" named Mark Twain, the future author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

@kennethamy,

I expect that the name that appears on Mark Twain's birth certificate was "Samuel Langhorne Clemens", not even "Samuel L Clemens".

Smile

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

I expect that the name that appears on Mark Twain's birth certificate was "Samuel Langhorne Clemens", not even "Samuel L Clemens".

Good point. I guess you've got me.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Good point. I guess you've got me.

Who am I to keep a guy from killing flies, but do you actually suppose he had a birth cirtificate? It is not all that likely in a frontier state, where the tax base would not support much of a bureacracy, and childhood death was nearly as common as the birth of children, that people in general would pay much attention to the common place. It is great that people on a philosophy forum know Mark Twain's name as he was one of our better philosophers. He had the rare good sense to let children and run away slaves do his talking for him. Adult hood clearly destroys more minds than it makes. It is hard to put an idea into the mouth of an adult hero that is not ultimately about sex or money, which is not to say the two can be finally divided.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Who am I to keep a guy from killing flies, but do you actually suppose he had a birth cirtificate? It is not all that likely in a frontier state, where the tax base would not support much of a bureacracy, and childhood death was nearly as common as the birth of children, that people in general would pay much attention to the common place. It is great that people on a philosophy forum know Mark Twain's name as he was one of our better philosophers. He had the rare good sense to let children and run away slaves do his talking for him. Adult hood clearly destroys more minds than it makes. It is hard to put an idea into the mouth of an adult hero that is not ultimately about sex or money, which is not to say the two can be finally divided.

I think you got me again.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I think you got me again.

Keep thinking.

@Fido,

Wisdom eventually arrives from experience.

Thought arrives because of inexperience.

Smile

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

Wisdom eventually arrives from experience.

Thought arrives because of inexperience.

Is this true? Much that we experience we suffer without making sense of, and that which we can make sense of hardly limits our need for thought.

@Fido,

Religious mystics, first rate performing artists and accomplished sportsmen all have this in common:

They practice in order to eliminate the thought, to go right with confidence..

Smile

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know