Nothing to do with formalism. It has to do with the fact that you do not seem to understand what an argument is, or what the characteristics of a good or bad argument are. I used no symbolic logic in my replies to you. Just plain English. Why don't you google "argument" and "logic" , and learn something about it. Just as you cannot discuss chemistry without knowing at least some elementary chemistry, you cannot discuss logic without knowing at least some elementary terms of logic. And these are in English, not symbolic logic. Aristotle and Plato knew no symbolic logic, but they knew what an argument was, and the difference between good and bad arguments. In fact, it was Aristotle who invented the study of logic.

Is it possible perhaps that you believe that I do not 'understand what an argument is' not because I actually do not understand what an argument is, but rather because you are incapable of understanding my argument, though it in fact stands perfectly well and would indeed appear to stand perfectly well to anyone who isn't...errr...you? Is that possible? In any case, keep in mind, as you read this my last post to you in this thread, that you began the ad hominem attacks in the post previous to your last and that, generally, people resort to ad hominem attacks when they haven't got any other, rational argument to make. Consider that as you ponder how I fail to 'understand what an argument is.'

If you cannot understand my arguments unless they are translated into symbolic logic, then you will not ever understand my arguments, because I have no intention of translating them into symbolic logic. If philosophy is, in your mind, reduced so that it is only worthwhile or even coherent if in a certain format, then we have come, in my opinion, to a very a sad state of affairs. It means that method and systematization have replaced the actual persuit of Truth and, paraphrasing Nietzsche, methods are required by those that lack character. In other words, formality is required by those who do not bridle at formality: i.e. those who have something to express which does not fit within the formal structure, or in any case does not require that formal structure. Then again, maybe my arguments are utter nonsense and cannot be understood at all. If that's the case, then repeating them for the nth time won't solve our confusion, so I suppose it's best to stop here and cut our losses.

Regarding the part of your comments that I underlined above, I'll ignore your suggestion but I have one of my own for you, which you no doubt will ignore, but I feel inclined to make nonetheless. Forget all symbols which are not contained in the alphabet, learned to express yourself purely through the most refined medium, burn your symbolic logic books, read the Will to Power, read it again, and then write down what you've learned.

The underlying questions are:



.

Questions about what?

Oh! About a Logic of Metaphysics. [See "On the Inherent Logic of Metaphysics," by Lu Jie-Rong]

I was riffing off the question: "Is Logic applicable to any or all other branches of Philosophy, i.e., Epistemology ("knowedge of the 'external world'")?"

Logic is applicable to everything, as long as you want to apply it.

Logic is the science of argument, after all.

Not everything:

"The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. Dennis Rodman is only one example." Dave Barry



Some would argue with that definition of logic:

"Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." Lewis Carroll

Not everything:

"The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. Dennis Rodman is only one example." Dave Barry



Some would argue with that definition of logic:

"Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." Lewis Carroll