Logic to not want to not want?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95004 wrote:

I agree completely. "Quito" is a name. But, Quito is a city in Ecuador.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;95081 wrote:

So what? "Joe" is the name of a man in Tennessee, and "Joe" is the name of a man in Oklahoma, and "Joe" is the name of a man in Alaska. But the three Joes went no where. Names are not the things they name. There is one name, "Joe", but there are at least three things named, "Joe", and a lot more! You are confusing the name with the thing. Why can't the same city have different names? The author of, Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, and, Puddinhead Wilson, was one and the same person, namely, Mark Twain (or Samuel L. Clemens). So why cannot the author of the same book have different names? Just as the same person may have three or more different names, so different persons may have the same name. What is the problem?

The city of Constantinople went nowhere. It is now, Istanbul. But the name, "Constantinople" is just no longer used. Just as the country, Ceylon, went no where. Although it is not called, "Sri Lanka". So what? Again, the confusion of names with things.

@kennethamy,

The sentence "Quito is a city in Ecuador." is shorthand for: "There is an object named 'Quito' that is a member of the class of objects named 'a city in Ecuador'."

To quote the famous Twentieth Century philosopher William of Hope: "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Quote:

The city of Constantinople went nowhere. It is now, Istanbul.

You mean "The city that used to be named 'Constantinople' is now the city named 'Istambul'."

Quote:

But the name, "Constantinople" is just no longer used.

The name "Constantinople" is still used now by historians to refer to an object that used to be a member of the class of objects named "a city in Turkey".

However, even now some Turks have been heard to say: "Istambul is no longer the same as what it used to be." What would Heraclitus say?

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;95153 wrote:

However, even now some Turks have been heard to say: "Istambul is no longer the same as what it used to be." What would Heraclitus say?

No idea. But I hope he would say that yes, it has changed. Your "translations" from what Rudolf Carnap used to call "the material mode" into what he called, '"the formal mode" are fine. But what is the point of them? What is wrong with the good old material mode when there is nothing philosophical at stake? If I am saying the same thing in both cases, and if it makes no difference philosophically, why say that the "formal mode" is what I "really mean". I really mean both, since they both mean the same thing. Right? So, what is your point?

@Refus,

I just happened to read about Carnap's modes today in a history of modern philosophy book. What a coincidence.

@Emil,

Emil;95176 wrote:

I just happened to read about Carnap's modes today in a history of modern philosophy book. What a coincidence.

Good. The distinction between the material mode and the formal mode is important when we talk, for instance, about what is meant when we say that X does (does not) exist. In the formal mode, "exist" should not appear as a predicate. Indeed, in Russell's formulation, "exist" does not appear at all. It disappears into the existential quantifier. As Quine remarked, we can give "exist" to the metaphysicians. We will just keep, "There is".

@Refus,

Quote:

Originally posted by longknowledge
However, even now some Turks have been heard to say: "Istambul is no longer the same as what it used to be." What would Heraclitus say?

Quote:

Subsequently posted by kennethamy
No idea. But I hope he would say that yes, it has changed.

"Seeing that the whole of nature is in motion, and that nothing is true of what is changing, they supposed that it is not possible to speak truly of what is changing in absolutely all respects. For from this belief flowered the most extreme opinion of those I have mentioned - that of those who say they 'Heraclitize', and such was held by Cratylus, who in the end thought one should say nothing and only moved his finger, and reproached Heraclitus for saying that you cannot step in the same river twice- for he himself thought you could not do so even once." (Aristotle, Metaph. 1010a7-15)

Therefore, as Cratylus used to say, "You can never take a walk in the same city once!"

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;95302 wrote:

"Seeing that the whole of nature is in motion, and that nothing is true of what is changing, they supposed that it is not possible to speak truly of what is changing in absolutely all respects. For from this belief flowered the most extreme opinion of those I have mentioned - that of those who say they 'Heraclitize', and such was held by Cratylus, who in the end thought one should say nothing and only moved his finger, and reproached Heraclitus for saying that you cannot step in the same river twice- for he himself thought you could not do so even once." (Aristotle, Metaph. 1010a7-15)

Therefore, as Cratylus used to say, "You can never take a walk in the same city once!"

But, of course you can say true things about what is changing. For example, that it is changing. Aristotle is only reporting what H. was supposed to have said. He is not endorsing it, since it is obviously false.

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Originally Posted by longknowledge

" . . . Cratylus, who in the end thought one should say nothing and only moved his finger, and reproached Heraclitus for saying that you cannot step in the same river twice- for he himself thought you could not do so even once." (Aristotle, Metaph. 1010a7-15)

Quote:

Subsequently posted by kennethamy

Aristotle is only reporting what H. was supposed to have said. He is not endorsing it, since it is obviously false.

I infer from the above set of quotes that you think that H's statement that "you cannot step in the same river twice" is obviously false. By what organized way did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you confident that you have not gone wrong in making this conclusion? Did you use logic? Would Cratylus have reproached you by moving his finger? And what about Aristotle? And Heinlein?

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;95362 wrote:

I infer from the above set of quotes that you think that H's statement that "you cannot step in the same river twice" is obviously false. By what organized way did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you confident that you have not gone wrong in making this conclusion? Did you use logic? Would Cratylus have reproached you by moving his finger? And what about Aristotle? And Heinlein?

Are you going to keep asking that question? If so, have you boiler plated it. I think I have given you enough information for you to try to answer that question yourself. When you have, if you would like me to look it over, I will. Meanwhile, I'll just repeat, that to say you cannot step into the the same river twice is clearly false. For instance, I could step into the Hudson river in Albany, and then, again at Saratoga. I would then be stepping into the same river twice, and, as you can see, I could step into the Hudson as many times as I please (but I'd rather do it when the weather gets warmer again, if you don't mind).

@Refus,

Presumably what H. meant was that everything is changing all the time, and thus a river a some location is not the same in the very literal meaning of "same" (Leibniz' Law and that) as a river in 'that' location some other time, and if it ain't the same river, you can't thread in it twice.

Nothing profound about this, is there?

@Emil,

Emil;95387 wrote:

Presumably what H. meant was that everything is changing all the time, and thus a river a some location is not the same in the very literal meaning of "same" (Leibniz' Law and that) as a river in 'that' location some other time, and if it ain't the same river, you can't thread in it twice.

Nothing profound about this, is there?

H. confuses the river, which is a geographical entity, with the water that flows through the river. It is not the same water you can step into (unless, of course, you are very quick, and you follow the water you step into as it flows down stream, and then step into the same water again-but you have to be fast!) but it is certainly the same river. In fact, you can step into the same river even 5 years later. If you can swim in the same river twice, or 22 times, you can certainly step into it twice, or 22 times.

@Refus,

Refus;2038 wrote:

Well, what do you think, is it logic that you do not want to not want, as it is logic to want to want to want....?

Uhmm ..if I get this right.

Many smokers does not want to want a smoke, yes?

Many scorned people would want to want to being able to kick someones butt, but their moral forbids them to really want it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95399 wrote:

H. confuses the river, which is a geographical entity, with the water that flows through the river. It is not the same water you can step into (unless, of course, you are very quick, and you follow the water you step into as it flows down stream, and then step into the same water again-but you have to be fast!) but it is certainly the same river. In fact, you can step into the same river even 5 years later. If you can swim in the same river twice, or 22 times, you can certainly step into it twice, or 22 times.

The online Oxford English Dictionary defines river as follows:

Quote:

A copious stream of water flowing in a channel towards the sea, a lake, or another stream.

Thus what you are confusing is the stream of water with the river-channel. You cannot swim in the river-channel, only in the river, which, like life, is ever-flowing, ever-flowing, isn't it?

:flowers:

@boagie,

boagie;2173 wrote:

Refus,

I thought you might be able to get into this,
We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom.
[CENTER]Charles S. Peirce, "Logic of Events" (1898)[/CENTER]

[CENTER]No need to thank me,it was nothing! Boagie
[/CENTER]
Seriously, this sounds like material you might get your teeth into,also don't forget Heraclitus! See you on the boards!!!!

Quote:

As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom.

...This section can only be a metaphor and a bad one...but it is understandable, as describing such a thing as it is, or in any other way, would be already negating its condition of non-being...

Philosophy Forum

Logic to not want to not want?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know