Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Dialectical Logic

Philosophy Forum
» Logic
» Dialectical Logic

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

".....In philosophy, a rigid adherence to the basic laws of traditional formal logic can be a liability more than an asset, and pose an obstacle to insight and intuition. For philosophy in its discourse characteristically uses very equivocal terms, It discusses "being," "knowledge," "subjectivity," "unity," "matter," etc. --notions which are far from having determinate denotations, and become meaningful only if we explore and compare the many analogous senses in which they are utilized......."

Howard P. Kainze on Hegel

Formal logic is a beautiful thing in contrast to the blurriness of living human thought. Just as integers are beautiful in contrast to irrational numbers.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108474 wrote:

".....In philosophy, a rigid adherence to the basic laws of traditional formal logic can be a liability more than an asset, and pose an obstacle to insight and intuition. For philosophy in its discourse characteristically uses very equivocal terms, It discusses "being," "knowledge," "subjectivity," "unity," "matter," etc. --notions which are far from having determinate denotations, and become meaningful only if we explore and compare the many analogous senses in which they are utilized......."

Howard P. Kainze on Hegel

But what have the laws of traditional formal logic to do with the supposed equivocality of terms?

@Reconstructo,

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;108474]".....In philosophy, a rigid adherence to the basic laws of traditional formal logic can be a liability more than an asset, and pose an obstacle to insight and intuition.[/quote]
What does that mean exactly? Does that mean adhere but not rigidly, or does it mean to sometimes deviate from the laws (or rather basic laws) of logic? Are there laws that apply to traditional formal logic that doesn't apply to (say) formal logic (or even plane ole logic for that matter)? It would seem to me that we would progress farther (and faster) by conforming to laws and principles until such time we have outstanding reason to dismiss them.

@fast,

fast;108484 wrote:

What does that mean exactly? Does that mean adhere but not rigidly, or does it mean to sometimes deviate from the laws (or rather basic laws) of logic? Are there laws that apply to traditional formal logic that doesn't apply to (say) formal logic (or even plane ole logic for that matter)? It would seem to me that we would progress farther (and faster) by conforming to laws and principles until such time we have outstanding reason to dismiss them.

And, in fact, we have done so.

@Reconstructo,

"meaningful only if we explore and compare the many analogous senses in which they are utilized......."

Language Games / Context / Hermeneutics

The words that (I think) matter most to human beings are precisely those that are most equivocal. What is good? What is true?

Formal logic deserves respect, but should not confuse itself with Living Logic. Life is generally equivocal. We operate in a fog of uncertainty. Uncertain of the outcome of our actions and uncertain of what other human beings precisely mean in their use of equivocal dead-metaphor abstract speech.

I program computers. If-Then statements and all that. Formal logic is beautiful. But life is not processed thereby. Of course, some our language use is addressed by formal logic. But our metaphorical abstract language use is exactly the equivocal language use mentioned above. And this requires something like dialectical or living logic. But I'm not particularly attached to Hegel's term or indeed to any term.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108572 wrote:

"

The words that (I think) matter most to human beings are precisely those that are most equivocal. What is good? What is true?

.

The questions, "what is good?" and "what is true?" are equivocal. They may be asking either, what things or good or true, or what is it that all those things that are good or true have in common in virtue of which they are good or they are true? But that is no reason to think that the terms, "good" and "true" are, themselves, equivocal.

@kennethamy,

What do you strive for? What about yourself are you most proud of? What philosophers do you think are most important, and why?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108631 wrote:

What do you strive for? What about yourself are you most proud of? What philosophers do you think are most important, and why?

There was a music competition between Apollo and Marsyas. Apollo plays the music of heaven on his lyre. Marsyas plays ragged street music on a wind instrument. The judges choose Apollo and Marsyas is condemned to being skinned to death for challenging Apollo.

There's a lot of statues of Marsyas being flayed... screaming.

His was the music of those who won't live forever... wild and irrational.

I can't choose between them because I'm both.

I think you were directing the above question to kennethamy?

@Arjuna,

I welcome your answer & also the mythology presented. Welcome aboard.

@Reconstructo,

Logic is the white wedding dress of Rhetoric, a notorious courtesan.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108982 wrote:

Logic is the white wedding dress of Rhetoric, a notorious courtesan.

Logic is like beetle who crawls amongst the rotting leaves on the forest floor. He goes down into holes and out again one step at a time. Then at the top of a twig, he opens his shell and out come his tiny wings. Without thinking, he flies into the ether... having become intuition.

He flies without thinking because if he stopped and thought about how to fly, it would screw the pooch... logic can't tell him how.

Kierkegaard is important to me because his writing feels like the voice of a brother I didn't know I had. But then, I respond to everything from my own thoughts. Could it be that what we get from any writer is a blend of them and ourselves?

@Reconstructo,

I must agree. All we can do is match their symbols with our inner experience, and see what develops.

I do think highly of intuition.

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;109020 wrote:

Logic is like beetle who crawls amongst the rotting leaves on the forest floor. He goes down into holes and out again one step at a time. Then at the top of a twig, he opens his shell and out come his tiny wings. Without thinking, he flies into the ether... having become intuition.

He flies without thinking because if he stopped and thought about how to fly, it would screw the pooch... logic can't tell him how.

Block that metaphor!

@Reconstructo,

I personally like to play the bridge between the poetic intuitives and the hyper-critcal. I don't want to miss out on any significant human potential. I want it all.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;108630 wrote:

The questions, "what is good?" and "what is true?" are equivocal. They may be asking either, what things or good or true, or what is it that all those things that are good or true have in common in virtue of which they are good or they are true? But that is no reason to think that the terms, "good" and "true" are, themselves, equivocal.

I think it's a pretty good reason, since words are used in sentences with other words.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111364 wrote:

I think it's a pretty good reason, since words are used in sentences with other words.

All words are used in company with other words. That doesn't make all of them equivocal. The word, "triangle" as used in plane geometry is not.

---------- Post added 12-14-2009 at 07:09 PM ----------

Reconstructo;109100 wrote:

I personally like to play the bridge between the poetic intuitives and the hyper-critcal. I don't want to miss out on any significant human potential. I want it all.

I just like to play bridge.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111368 wrote:

All words are used in company with other words. That doesn't make all of them equivocal. The word, "triangle" as used in plane geometry is not.
.

This dodges my point entirely, which is always an option for anyone, since truth is not the goal in the first place, is it?

Dodgeball is a pretty good metaphor for what goes down in the name of truth.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111371 wrote:

This dodges my point entirely, which is always an option for anyone, since truth is not the goal in the first place, is it?

Dodgeball is a pretty good metaphor for what goes down in the name of truth.

Since you don't believe there is truth, why would you care? How did I dodge your point. The term, "plane triangle" is not ambiguous, Yet it is used in company with other words. Therefore, there is at least one term that is used in the company of other terms, which is not ambiguous. QED

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;108630 wrote:

The questions, "what is good?" and "what is true?" are equivocal. They may be asking either, what things or good or true, or what is it that all those things that are good or true have in common in virtue of which they are good or they are true? But that is no reason to think that the terms, "good" and "true" are, themselves, equivocal.

This post wasn't about triangles. Triangles are easy. Good and true are difficult. In real life, anyway.

@Reconstructo,

Forgive me for fishing. I just want to float these threads once more, to see if the time is right.

Philosophy Forum
» Logic
» Dialectical Logic

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Dialectical Logic

Quick Links

My Account

able2know