Knowledge of the 'External' World

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

BrightNoon
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 01:26 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;105756 wrote:
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.'
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 01:29 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;105763 wrote:
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.'


O.K. Then what is an argument?
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 10:08 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;105747 wrote:
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:

What are the premises of Logic itself?

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

Can we speak of an Epistemology of Logic? [See The logic of epistemology and the epistemology of logic: selected essays, by Jaakko Hintikka and Merrill b. Hintikka (Springer, 1989).]

How about a Metaphysics of Logic? [See "Some Suggestions Concerning Metaphysics of Logic," by Clarene Irving Lewis in his Selected Papers (Stanford University Press, 1970), Chapter 8]

Or a Metaphysics of Epistemology? [See The Metaphysics of Epistemology, by Ernest Sosa and Enrique Villanueva (Blackwell Pub., 2007)]

And what about Fuzzy or Deviant Logic? [See Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism, by Susan Haack (University of Chicago Press, 1996)]

But these questions belong under Metaphilosophy.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 10:16 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;105855 wrote:
The underlying questions are:



.


Questions about what?
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 08:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;105856 wrote:
Questions about what?


Oh! About a Logic of Metaphysics. [See "On the Inherent Logic of Metaphysics," by Lu Jie-Rong]
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 09:37 pm
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;105977 wrote:
Oh! About a Logic of Metaphysics. [See "On the Inherent Logic of Metaphysics," by Lu Jie-Rong]


And has that anything to do with knowledge of the external world? I mean, how did that come up? I must have missed something.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2009 08:29 am
@BrightNoon,
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'")?"
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2009 09:18 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;106079 wrote:
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. As long as you think that you should argue for your view, or against the views of others. Logic is the science of argument, after all.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2009 06:12 pm
@BrightNoon,
Logic is Rhetoric's tuxedo.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 02:14 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;106082 wrote:
Logic is applicable to everything, as long as you want to apply it.


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

Quote:
Logic is the science of argument, after all.


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
 
l0ck
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 02:30 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;106316 wrote:
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


IF we are to discuss logic, which in my opinion is a good idea because it can be related to perception, and thus the 'externalized' world (moderators permitting im not getting off topic.. i have the feeling I may have to write to them in separate parts of my post in order to relate to the topic so they don't accredit me with infraction points for getting off topic, and thus ban me)

Logic comes from paradigm. We think our perceptions together under the developed pattern recognition of paradigm. All is before us, it is our paradigm that formulates the 'here and now' out of the infinite spectrum before us. Logic is not derived from the environment. But logic is a tool. And as humans we have the unique ability to switch between paradigm, and thus logic, and thus realities.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 02:01 am
@l0ck,
"Tool" is a good metaphor for logic. If philosophy isn't our tool, it's we who are the tools.Laughing
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 08:39 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;106316 wrote:
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


I don't know what "explained by logic" means. Logic does not offer explanations. I don't mind anyone arguing with that definition of logic, as long as he presents a good argument. If you mean by "arguing against" merely objecting, that is of no significance at all. Anyone can object to anything.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 03:38 pm
@BrightNoon,
I still argue that non-formal logic is better described as persuasion. As soon as logic moves into the realm of the abstract, it loses whatever pseudo-mathematical mystique that gives the word its special tang.

A man calls a persuasion that he agrees with "logical" ."Logical" is a complimentary adjective. Formal logic is something else. But how useful for most human concerns is formal logic? Except to the degree that it enhances persuasion...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 07:59:05