Isn't -1 inverted -1?

I'm more than a little interested in the structure of human thought. I feel that the TLP is concerned with what I call "proto-logic." An equally good term might be "transcendental logic."

Two little points I'll kick off with. Consider the word "what" (as an instance among other words of this type). "What now?" "What" seems to function like a variable, like an x. This seems related to the existential quantifier in formal logic and the variable in math. Note: I see "proto-logic" as foundational to both language, formal logic, mathematics, algorithms...

Another word is "not." The thought of negation. It seems built in. "He's not here" is the negation of "he's here." A sort of minus sign on a statement. Of course we have this in formal logic, and we have the negative equals sign in math.

For me, this is the core of philosophy, this searching after the proto-logic.
Thoughts?

In a word, NO.
IMO it doesnot work like that.


Of course it is always possible to associate words to logical operators, but this is the outcome of selection/definition out of their possible meanings.
This operation is not finding the core logic that makes our language work. It is a(-n arbitrary) refinement that by limiting the possible meaning of a word, ultimately makes it some other word, a symbol, an operator. To rephrase that, inducing logic in natural language it's an operation ex-post, logic is not the root of language.


This indeed leaves open the question of what is language and what is logic and in which way they relate to each other. (Btw I believe that beforehand some decision is required about the existence of a unique language or if indeed several languages coexist in our words and thoughts (and symbols) - the latter is closer to my hypothesis).
My position is that logic, at least a big part of it, is a cultural byproduct. It represents the need to truthfully process truth, la femme fatale of our Western thought. But does natural language(-s) do really need to process truths so often? Is really language about predicating truth?
Ultimately, logic is religion.


The repeated attempts to try to find deep logical strutures in language are doomed to failure in my hypothesis . They move from the wrong assumption -a white lie, indeed - that language is a lot more crystallised and uniform than it actually is. This is not the case. We might be under this false impression because we focus on an abstract representation of Indoeuropean languages and because the offspring of Indo-europeans has been culturally dominant world-wide since the XVII century (and also for the time before we cannot get rid of a euro-centric perspective). But inferring that any supposed deep structure of Indoeuropean languages (assuming there is such a thing) is the inner working of all possible languages is a leap forward that I don't think it's correct.

. I still argue for the transcendental.

I don't think I'm well understood on this, .

Indeed, if we deny the transcendental, how can we argue the usual happy theme of human solidarity? Also, I'm not one for reduced ambitions.

Formal logic is like mathematics an invention, and language is presumably prior to both.

I suggest that both are built on a few self-evident notions.

If we don't seek the universal, what are we seeking?

And if we argue against the possibility of such universal goals, how can we do so if not from the same universal logic we intend to discredit?

Sometimes the medium says more than the message.

Two little points I'll kick off with. Consider the word "what" (as an instance among other words of this type). "What now?" "What" seems to function like a variable, like an x. This seems related to the existential quantifier in formal logic and the variable in math. Note: I see "proto-logic" as foundational to both language, formal logic, mathematics, algorithms...

That's interesting. I'd be grateful if you write more about this connection (some other thread?).

I agree.
Nevertheless logic (as well as all mathematics), is a very peculiar invention, that is not similar to other human inventions - such as a drug or the diesel engine. (In a sense it's more creative, because it's freed from physical constraints. On the other end, it must comply with a very strict discipline, else it would collapse). I probably lack the knowledge and the skill to grasp the exact nature of this often beautiful ideal artifacts, but I am convinced that they are most peculiar and - although I do not adhere to your proto-logical programme - I share the idea that they are very interesting per se.

I am reluctant to accept that - I am reluctant to use the idea of self-evidence in general. For the point in case, there is the well known case of non-euclidean geometries against this assumption.

"Seeking", the quest for foundation and principles... No I am not after that - maybe I am not yet past a teenage nihilistic phase.

If you look after proof and confutation, then it's about the only option.
But if one does not...

Wittgenstein's use of "deep grammar" was in reference to psychological causation of the meaning of surface grammar. It was an attempt to internalize the language process and eject the standard object/referent models. It Also suffers the same problems that Chomsky does, it is a series of transformations that lead nowehere. Except in wittgenstein's case the transformation is due to external forces applied, acquired, then transformed. But it still completely skips the actual mechanism of language. It does not address the actual cognitive process underlying language.

What is the essence of being human? I would argue that humans are essentially essence. Which is to say that humans, as humans and not simply animals, are thinking beings. If thought is the essence of man, what is the essence of thought? Or in other words, the essence of essence. And this took me from Kant to Hegel to mathematics.

I can't agree with the definition of this proto logic, I suck balls at math and language, but are excelent at abstract logic. I know several people who are brilliant at math, but sucks extremely much at language, so in essence it does not rely on same basis.

I'v only read very little about intelligences and brain structure, but most intelligences can work independantly of eachother, you can actually lose many areas of the brain, and still have perfectly functional remaining brain functions.

..so no, this proto logic doesn't exist, Imo.

Just one little anecdotal example of why using language to get at proto-logic is so very difficult. But it is correct, I would suppose, to consider that every language as it is processed by the brain has a functional negativizer category that fuzzes out at the edges.

Language is part poetry. What gets lost in a translation from decimal to hexidecimal is just that.

Point is: our minds have a fluid character.. moving from one viewpoint to another, finding patterns in clouds and tree leaves. As the mind ponders itself, it finds the primal and eternal. It also finds there can't logically be any vantage point from which to see itself truly. I've been thinking about that lately. Plato has Socrates saying that the philosopher wants to die because his examinations of the ways of the mind lead him to that conclusion: that there is some truth that can't be known from within this life. Logically, it could only be seen from outside. This vantage point is what the philosopher longs for. That was my translation anyway.

It does not address the actual cognitive process underlying language.

I still must assert that mathematics is in many ways an ideal universal language. But this comes at a cost. Reduced ambitions of expression but increased efficiency of such expression. e^(pi*i) = -1 is one hell of lot of meaning to squeeze into so few symbols. But one must know the language, and the significance of the "sentence" within this world of shape, quantity, and abstract groups. ....

I am so lost.



Vikings rules most of Europa back in the days, yet didn't have any greater knowledge of math.

Even more striking is that Obama is attempting to extract the United States from deep economic chaos, without any knowledge of basic economics, not to mention ignorance of math. For instance, like the Greek politicians, he seems to be oblivious to the fact that if you continue to spend more than you have coming in, and if you try to conceal this by massive borrowing, you will inevitably go bankrupt. The Greeks are learning this now; I suppose the United States will learn it, but after Obama leaves office (which I hope will be fairly soon).

I am so lost.

1) in what way do you think math is an universal language? At no point do I see tribal behaviour having any knowledge of math, they have other values for communicating.

2) last part of your quote are beyond my understanding, I understand nothing.

I see your objection, and I respect that. It's a good point. Still, I think it's a relatively universal language. If a German comes up with some equation to find the primes, this equation can be written precisely in a way that someone who does not understand German can understand. Apparently, the decimal system is quite the standard these days, to dwell on the mere foundation of modern number.

I suppose the only truly universal languages are music, facial expression, dance. There are still enriched by context, but they can be largely understood with a minimum of social experience.

Well, math is about shape and groups as well as numbers. Numbers are just one part of math. That's my experience, at least. There are some who try to think of numbers as sets, as abstract groups, and not as quantities. It gets pretty wild. And the concept of functions is something special. You have to dive in, I guess, to see what I mean. I study constantly, and I feel that I am merely an enthusiastic beginner. But it's all relative.

Small children can understand very very simple math, that 1 is more than nothing, it scales very low if math is not taught.

And I do fully agree with your reasoning of the truly universal languages.

Official math often differs from personal math understanding, some number/math savants think in very unique patterns.

What is the essence of being human? I would argue that humans are essentially essence. Which is to say that humans, as humans and not simply animals, are thinking beings. If thought is the essence of man, what is the essence of thought? Or in other words, the essence of essence. And this took me from Kant to Hegel to mathematics.

It seems to me that we simply do not and cannot live without transcendental assumptions. We can't sincerely question our ability to question. We simply must and do assume that humans have something human in common, which is already implied in the word "humans." For me, the question of essence and accident is itself essential and not accidental to philosophy. The philosopher is on a quest for essence, I think. And there seems to be an eros in man that desires essence.

I should make it clear that any "proto-logic" is not an invention. But any formal logic is. I suppose I am studying the inventor by looking at its/his inventions. The essence of any formal logic is the "proto-logic." The rest is accident. It's contingent. It's this little glyph instead of that one.

I'm glad you mention that. Non-euclidean geometries are especially dependent upon axioms. I suspect that they are useful for relativity, etc. , and I agree that they are not transcendental. Except perhaps for what is carried over from Euclid. Ideally straight lines, etc.

I too have been reluctant to take self-evidence for granted, and I have trod the road of radical skepticism. But the road is self-refuting. In the end, the skeptic has no grounds for skepticism. Because if he argues against the possibility of knowledge, a more radical skeptic can argue against the assumptions inherent in such an argument. Also, human beings cannot and do not live in accordance with skepticism. Hume wrote well on this. I respect the mental integrity that is associated with skepticism. I suspect you are a sincere thoughtful person. Perhaps you are just on a different piece of the highway.

Well, when I was younger, I was much more attracted to questions of ethics, values, etc. And I was skeptical, corrosive, etc. All that was already here was something I had to hack thru to make some room for myself. I had to doubt it all to not be drowned by it all. I feel that as I was exposed, year by year, book by book, to more and more, I could process it better. In the end, I saw how great it all was, all this Western "culture" that preceded my birth.

In the end, this "quest" is a blessing. I'm a moth drawn to a flame, and it's only a goal that makes progress possible. I'm a big fan of Spengler's concept of the Faustian man. From Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, in my younger days, to Hegel, Kant, Spengler, Leibniz, these days. Of course math is eating my brain full time.

I have no such concept of man. Human is just a class of animals. (And it seems quite possible that other animals think - and use a language).
What makes men special is their history. Probably men are the only animals with a History - but that does not make us intrinsically special.

A definition of "transcendental" would be required here.
It is quite agreed that our senses do not represent the completeness of things.
Whether this distortion in our perception extends to such a thing (category) as Causality, is more problematic to many.
One more level it's represented by the reality of the subject - that Kant never questioned, but that Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (and others) did. (And I side with this third group).

Taking into account the distortions in our perception - that we would be able to control/unmask in many instances - I do not see the transcendental assumptions as compulsory, although one may make them.
The naive(?) assumption that objects exist outside and independently of us - the tempered belief that our senses are a way to know all these things to a degree that let us infer that they are (somehow) such as we perceive them - has been rife for centuries and it still is. So far, it does comply with the Occam's razor a lot more than any explanation trying to deny this and seeking to explain patterns in our perception.

Btw, I believe that a philosopher is basically a would-be ruler, a potential tyrant (even analytic philosophers). Pol Pot or Ceauşescu were a lot more philosophers than Mother Teresa. (And I guess that this means there is gulf between us)

I am reluctant to accept this thesis because I am not persuaded that thought precedes language, I do not believe that language is just a tool - and even then the tool modifies its user.

Actually... I agree with you. But you just presented my argument: we value our knowledge before testing it. In the process of knowing we apply values. Knowing is a form of valuing. And this has a lot of consequences and implications... (BG&E I, 1-4)
There is no such a thing as pure perception and there's no such a thing as pure (scientific) knowledge - they both have moral values before, between and after them.

So do I, and one thing I retained (well... not the only one): God is dead...

And that's probably why I am always keen on reading your posts