As I don't understand formal logic , it appears incapable of giving actual examples and lives in world all of its own, I cant comment. Formal education on the subject appears essential to give a valid reply. To me the statement is contradictory, if it has no value , logic, then it has been based on ill informed information.

I agree that "Logic is Empty" is an incorrect conclusion, even if 'Logic' only consists of tautologies.
That tautologies are senseless is granted by Wittgenstein because of his interpretation (understanding) that only empirical propositions have sense.

For an 'actual' example, the tautology (2+2=4) is not without sense, in virtue of its generalized application to the world of sense.

eg. (2x +2x = 4x) for all objects x, means that two of anything in the world added to two of anything in the world is equal to four of anything in the world.

If logical/mathematical tautologies were meaningless then there would be no application to logic/math at all.
Because we do know that logic/math has application, we can deny that tautologies are without sense, that is, we can deny that Logic is Empty.

I don't agree that formal education on the subject is needed to give an opinion on this subject.

xris: "To me the statement is contradictory, if it has no value , logic, then it has been based on ill informed information."

This remark seems to me as valid as any other remark on the issue.
Logical tautologies are indeed useful to explain and verify/validate such remarks.

I agree that "Logic is Empty" is an incorrect conclusion, even if 'Logic' only consists of tautologies.
That tautologies are senseless is granted by Wittgenstein because of his interpretation (understanding) that only empirical propositions have sense.

For an 'actual' example, the tautology (2+2=4) is not without sense, in virtue of its generalized application to the world of sense.

eg. (2x +2x = 4x) for all objects x, means that two of anything in the world added to two of anything in the world is equal to four of anything in the world.

If logical/mathematical tautologies were meaningless then there would be no application to logic/math at all.
Because we do know that logic/math has application, we can deny that tautologies are without sense, that is, we can deny that Logic is Empty.

I don't agree that formal education on the subject is needed to give an opinion on this subject.

xris: "To me the statement is contradictory, if it has no value , logic, then it has been based on ill informed information."

This remark seems to me as valid as any other remark on the issue.
Logical tautologies are indeed useful to explain and verify/validate such remarks.

Can you tell me, when X is never the same, why it should represent anything in fact. Mathematical logic could only apply if everything was scrutinised with the same mathematical logic. I can never find an exact relationship in formal logic to reality. X could be Y but X is never Y and X is not always X . Sorry for my ignorance on this subject but my logic is not sufficient.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 08:18 AM ----------

Sorry but I was writing the last post and then saw yours..I am about to read it.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 08:32 AM ----------

I can understand the logic of pure maths, it can not be denied but the relationship to its understanding with reality always bemuses me. It appears an exercise rather than have any real value. Thanks xris

I think that there is 'real' value in logic and mathematics as to application.

We can understand the world better and easier, if we can sort out the not so obvious errors of our reasoning with the aid of logic and mathematics.

Logic is not empty. You have all these axioms, and they are surely something, thus, logic is not empty .:shifty:

For an 'actual' example, the tautology (2+2=4) is not without sense, in virtue of its generalized application to the world of sense.

3.334 The rules of logical syntax must go without saying, once we know
how each individual sign signifies.
5.122 If p follows from q, the sense of 'p' is contained in the sense of
'q'.

I think that there is 'real' value in logic and mathematics as to application.

We can understand the world better and easier, if we can sort out the not so obvious errors of our reasoning with the aid of logic and mathematics.

eg. (p or ~p) is true and applies to any proposition whatever, empirical or not.
It's that kind of generality that makes the pursuit of logic worthwhile, imo.

Saying logic has inherent meaning (this is how I am interpreting Full vs. Empty) is like saying the processes inside my calculator has inherent meaning.

I agree. Logic it its most abstract is a tautology calculator. It's just math with bits and truth tables. As soon as one hooks it up to language that means something to our lives, one runs into the slipperiness of this meaning.
To define truth, the self, justice, beauty, purpose, love, etc. is simply beyond the ability of logic, and yet these are essential theme in philosophy. There's just no dodging dialectic if one is serious about foolosophy.

logic is not a useless tool, its this mathematical reasoning that tries to tell me how to be logical that bewilders me, its a half empty bottle that cant really tell me if its half empty or half full. I can love but logic will give me the confidence to reject it. It aids my respect, it guides my morality.

Logic is the illusion we come up with to try to explain that which was unexplainable. Since its based on language and its symbols, we are governed by language and its symbols. And if we were to remove that from you then you will be faced with the Real of logic. If we were to remove and cut off the signified's i.e. the concepts from the signifier i.e. the acoustic image (the word) all you will be left with is the Real (that which you cannot put to words or symbolize). Logic therefore is nothing masked as something. Because words alone are just symbols, sounds, and images.

(p or ~p) is true and applies to any proposition whatever, empirical or not.
It's that kind of generality that makes the pursuit of logic worthwhile, imo.

But it's not true in intuitionistic logics.

I would love to hear whatever information you have on this sort of thing.

I like the LEM.