Philosophy is Role Play

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111640 wrote:

Fudging numbers, and making up statistics, is not criticizing methodology.

I agree with that, but that's something you dragged in. I don't find it relevant to this thread. And it's obviously not what I was referring to.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111641 wrote:

I agree with that, but that's something you dragged in. I don't find it relevant to this thread. And it's obviously not what I was referring to.

Why would you agree if you thought that persuasion was what should be done? Apparently the fudging and lying persuaded (and still does persuade) hundreds. I hear that you cannot find a hotel room in Copenhagen.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111638 wrote:

Logic is just an ideal method of persuasion.
Any science worthy of the name will continue to criticize its methodology. Yesterday's revolutionaries are today's reactionaries.

Surely, logic itself is still being created, revised, criticized. It's natural to pursue an ideal means of persuasion but dangerous to make an idol of it.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

But as long as logic is associated with a puerile reduction of human lingual experience, I'll stay over here with the sophists, who weren't afraid of metaphors or women (Sophia).

And by this you must mean you have disdain for logicians who try to formalize everything people say, while not taking into consideration the subtle nuancies, the beauty, in our language, right? But I don't think they do, and I don't think they can. They can really only formalize our propositions. They cannot formalize every word we speak, as not every word we speak expresses a truth or falsity.

Quote:

Would you mind proving this, logically? And do you have a refutation for antecedent skepticism?

Isn't antecedent skepticism where you doubt before you even make a claim? That would be a self-defeating mindset, where one consistently questions one's reliability (to evaluate the world around them). I have to refute this? This seems almost delusional. And I think the ball would be in their court - they must demonstrate that I cannot know anything, and why I should not be sure I know anything (excuse me if I got the whole antecedent skepticism notion wrong, I'm not too versed in what it means).

Quote:

How many philosophers have dreamed of achieving this closure? Wittgenstein thought for awhile he provided it with his Tractatus. Hegel too, in his own way. Is closure another god-substitute for atheists? Another prop for self-esteem and authority?

Blind faith is different than believing something for a good reason.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111820 wrote:

They cannot formalize every word we speak, as not every word we speak expresses a truth or falsity.

I don't see how metaphor can be squeezed through a calculator. It's not that I hate the strengths of logic, but rather what I perceive as a denial of its limits. Logic is beautiful, just as chess is beautiful. But logic is no more a mastery of living language than chess is an accurate image of war.

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 06:39 PM ----------

Zetherin;111820 wrote:

And I think the ball would be in their court - they must demonstrate that I cannot know anything, and why I should not be sure I know anything (excuse me if I got the whole antecedent skepticism notion wrong, I'm not too versed in what it means).
.

We have to have a faith of some kind in the method we use for determining truth. Antecedent skepticism is absurd, yes, but it's also a skeleton in the closet. Faith, in my secular use of the word, is a biological necessity. I suppose I'm suggesting that logic is founded upon intuitional axioms. Logos is one thing, but any simplification of this logos is possibly an oversimplification that flatters our sense of mastery.

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 06:44 PM ----------

Zetherin;111820 wrote:

Blind faith is different than believing something for a good reason.

Of course I know what you mean here, but what constitutes a "good reason." ? Is it the unforced consensus of those with a library card? Or does a sense of power of pleasure constitute a good reason? Is there a good reason for Bach to believe in God, if it gives him the feeling one hears in his music? I doubt that blind faith exists. Humans assimilate beliefs that appeal to them. I'm not going to deny the advantages of the Enlightenment....I just think we've got to keep the Enlightenment from ossifying into a self-satisfied dogma. The correspondence theory of truth should not be yet another idol that oppresses us. I also think that the cutting edge of thought is metaphor, which is relegated to rhetoric. If truth is a woman, she is always in danger of being burned as a witch.

And yes I am all dressed up as that hero who has a prejudice against prejudice. I don't go anywhere without an ironic smile in my pocket.
I respect you, Zeth. You argue with dignity.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111892 wrote:

I don't see how metaphor can be squeezed through a calculator. It's not that I hate the strengths of logic, but rather what I perceive as a denial of its limits. Logic is beautiful, just as chess is beautiful. But logic is no more a mastery of living language than chess is a accurate image of war.

But who ever said it was? Most people understand there are some things in language which aren't, and shouldn't be, reduced to formalizations.

But, by the same token, it must be understood that the truth logicians seek cannot be found in the incalculatable facet of language you refer to. It must be found within propositions - sentences which express truth or falsity. And, here, on this forum, you will find many who focus on accuracy in language, in an effort to weed out the propositions (because, in philosophy, we need to understand the propositions to evaluate them!).

You may be mistaking these truth-seekers as disparagers of our language, or worse yet, you may think this is all they see - strict formalizations, a language with no beating heart. But this is untrue in so many cases. I mean, is it wild to think one could be a logician, translating our language into logical form, and still appreciate the nuances, the rhetorical devices, the tonalities, etc. which breathe life into our language?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111896 wrote:

But who ever said it was? Most people understand there are some things in language which aren't, and shouldn't be, reduced to formalizations.

I'm sure you're right about this. Most good logicians probably even study the border of logic's territory as a significant issue. Still, I've argued with some who wouldn't give a sincere nod to metaphor, or admit that the creative cutting-edge of philosophy is the invention of concept. These concepts are metaphors, generally, and this makes rhetoric (if we are stodgy about the old terms) the mother of new philosophy. Perhaps, I've been a little Quixote against the windmills. But it was a fun role to play.

@Reconstructo,

You both need to read The Myth of Metaphor, by Colin Murray Turbayne. 2nd ed., revised. (Univerity of South Carolina Press, 1970). Turbayne argues that the concept of "metaphor" is a myth because it assumes that sometimes we are speaking metaphorically and other times not, whereas he demonstrates that we are always speaking metaphorically.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;111906 wrote:

You both need to read The Myth of Metaphor, by Colin Murray Turbayne. 2nd ed., revised. (Univerity of South Carolina Press, 1970). Turbayne argues that the concept of "metaphor" is a myth because it assumes that sometimes we are speaking metaphorically and other times not, whereas he demonstrates that we are always speaking metaphorically.

It sounds good. I think I dig the concept. Is it similar to the idea that all our abstract terms are just literalized ossified metaphors? Is it similar to the notion of language as a system of differences? I'll look it up, as metaphor seems like a gold mine. I've even played with the phrase "man is metaphor." But this is just a transformation of Kojeve/Hegel's "man is the concept." Anyway, thanks for the lead.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;111906 wrote:

You both need to read The Myth of Metaphor, by Colin Murray Turbayne. 2nd ed., revised. (Univerity of South Carolina Press, 1970). Turbayne argues that the concept of "metaphor" is a myth because it assumes that sometimes we are speaking metaphorically and other times not, whereas he demonstrates that we are always speaking metaphorically.

Excuse me, but "speaking metaphorically" as contrasted with what? That is like saying that the concept of counterfeit money is a myth, because all money is counterfeit. Just as counterfeit money make sense only in contrast with real money, so metaphor makes sense only in contrast with literal. There could be no concept of the metaphorical unless there were a concept of the literal. So whaat Colin Murray Turbayne, 2nd edition, says seem to me not to make any sense. Tell me, is "speaking metaphorically" speaking metaphorically?

@Reconstructo,

Norman O Brown wrote a book on Joyce and Vico called Closing Time that strongly influenced me. He investigates the development of language, religion, and politics. It's a sublime little book. It's amazing how much meaning he packs into his pages. It's not like his other books. The format is completely different. He is as terse as the King James.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111494 wrote:

Anything that distinguishes between truth and falsity. But, I am not familiar with many of the types of logic you have posted. The kind of logic I was speaking about evaluates syllogisms with inference, and is a study of correct reasoning. I'll begin researching the ones I have never heard of and get back to you.*

But, if the word holds true in all of these cases (which it may not; the term may loosely be thrown, or have a different connotation), and is as I said in my last post, then yes, all.

*EDIT: Yes. All of these evaluate reasoning and forms.

I was hoping you would recommend one for me to start out with. Being 70 years old I may not have time to get to them all.

Oh, by the way.

This is puzzling. When I consulted the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I found another list of Logics, only a few of which were the same as on the first list. Add these to your research. Dare I try the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

Ancient Logic, Aristotle's Logic, Bolzano's Logic, Classical Logic, Dialogical Logic (not to be confused with Diabolical Logic), Frege's Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Hybrid Logic, Independence Friendly Logic, Inductive Logic, Intuitionistic Logic, Kripke's Quantified Modal Logic, Linear Logic, Logic of Action, Logic of Belief Revision (if you can believe it), Logic of Conditionals, Mally's Deontic Logic, Paraconsistent Logic, Simplest Quantified Modal Logic (SQML for short), and Temporal Logic. [I was going to throw in Yogi's Logic, but I knew you wouldn't believe me if I did.]

And I thought Metaphysical Systems were confusing. How do you Logicians keep them all straight?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111820 wrote:

They cannot formalize every word we speak, as not every word we speak expresses a truth or falsity.

I was thinking about to what degree tone is a component of meaning. For instance: irony, sarcasm, ambivalence, parody, uncertainty. All of these take us into non-binary truth-falsity continuums. This is not to deny the use of all 500 branches of logic. I've done a little freshening up on the subject, and it still gleams with a certain purity. I was also reading on Cantor. Interesting cross-sparks.

@longknowledge,

Well, I did look at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and I'm glad I did. There I found only one entry on Logic, called "Propositional Logic" and I said to myself, this must be it! Then I started reading the first sentence:

Quote:

Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic and statement logic, . . .

Uh, oh! And then,

Quote:

Propositional logic is that branch of logic . . .

So this is only a "branch of logic" and here I am, out on a limb. Well, let's see what else there is to say:

Quote:

Truth-functional propositional logic is that branch of propositional logic that limits itself to the study of truth-functional operators.

So the branch has branches! And then the next sentence:

Quote:

Classical (or "bivalent") truth-functional propositional logic is that branch of truth-functional propositional logic . . .

So we're down to twigs now. I get it. Logic is like a tree. And God the Logician is probably saying: "In my tree there are many branches." And later on:

Quote:

Modal propositional logics are the most widely studied form of non-truth-functional propositional logic.

You mean there are non-truthful logics. Is this the logic of lies? And then we find:

Quote:

Deontic propositional logic, Epistemic propositional logic, Many-valued or multivalent propositional logics[!], Three-valued propositional logic, Relevance propositional logic, Intuitionist propositional logic, and Paraconsistent propositional logic.

Wow! So that's it. Logic has only one branch, Propositional Logic, and all the other logics are branches of this branch. They just have funnier names. And finally this:

Quote:

Other forms of non-classical propositional logic, and non-truth-functional propositional logic, continue to be discovered. Obviously any deviance from classical bivalent propositional logic raises complicated logical and philosophical issues that cannot be fully explored here.

Holy smokes! How am I ever going to catch up with Zetherin, let alone kennethamy? But wait a minute:

Quote:

For more details both on non-classical logic, and on non-truth-functional logic, see the recommended reading section.

Well, maybe I can pick one of these. Let's see if I recognize any of these names. Hmm!

Quote:

Carroll, Lewis. 1958. Symbolic Logic and the Game of Logic. London: Dover.

Now that name's familiar. It's an oldie, but it sounds like fun. I think I'll go with that one.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111393 wrote:

Logic is not simply some sort of art form you believe it is.

Let's consider this in relation to a broad conception of art. From Wiki: The nature of art has been described by Richard Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture".[3] It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation.[4]

Also, another side of the Tractatus:
"Proof in logic is merely a mechanical expedient to facilitate the recognition of tautologies in complicated cases."
"The propositions of logic are tautologies. Therefore the propositions of logic say nothing. "
"What belongs to its application, logic can not anticipate."
"And this is what we do, when we "prove" a logical proposition. For, without bothering about sense or meaning, we construct the logical proposition out of others using rules that only deal with signs."
Ludwig Wittgenstein --Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

I love art, logic, science, philosophy, comedy, role play, and sometimes, believe it or not, silence.

@Reconstructo,

longknowledge wrote:

Now that name's familiar. It's an oldie, but it sounds like fun. I think I'll go with that one.

I'm only starting to learn logic myself. I'd say if you want someone to reference you a logic textbook, ask Emil, VideCorSpoon, or kennethamy - these three probably know more about logic than most people on the forum. What I am doing is starting with a holistic understanding of what is logic, and then delving into basic formal logic. From there, I'm not sure where to go. Heck, I may not even be interested in all the formalizations and go back to being a poetic twit. We'll see.

Reconstructo wrote:

Let's consider this in relation to a broad conception of art. From Wiki: The nature of art has been described by Richard Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture".[3] It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation.[4]

Logic does not express one's emotions or ideas. One cannot choose, out of feeling, to make something false, for instance.

The Wittgenstein quotes are good, but none suggest logic is an artform. You think they do? Can you elaborate on which one you think does?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112065 wrote:

The Wittgenstein quotes are good, but none suggest logic is an artform. You think they do? Can you elaborate on which one you think does?

Elegance is a subsidiary value in logiic as it is in mathematics. Proofs with the fewest steps for the same proof are usually counted more elegant than longer proofs. But, of course, that does not make logic an "art-form". What would that mean?

Wittganstein has a formalist view of logic when he wrote the Tractatus. But later, in his Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematics, he repudiated it, as he did most of the Tractatus in his Philosophical Investigations.

@Reconstructo,

kennethamy wrote:

But, of course, that does not make logic an "art-form". What would that mean?

It would mean that logical proofs are no different than paintings, insofar as Reconstructo feels the logician, like the painter, is one that expresses himself. But logic is not about expression, at least not the sort of expression you would find in a painter who can sway the paintbrush in any manner he or she feels. This "elegance" you speak of in logic is the closest thing I can see to what Reconstructo is suggesting.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112074 wrote:

It would mean that logical proofs are no different than paintings, .

Why would anyone think that a serious suggestion? Even if there are some aesthetic values in logic, as in moat other enterprises. Painting my foot!

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112076 wrote:

Why would anyone think that a serious suggestion?

Reconstructo believes man leans on objectivity in much the same way man leans on God, for comfort. He believes that man's believing in a logical proof is the same sort of blind belief one sees in a man depending on God. And, when one speaks of logical proofs as recognizing truths, he takes this to be arrogant, and a "defense of objectivity!" being made. (Reconstructo, please correct me if I'm wrong)

I think, however, it's easier to lean on subjectivity. It's easier to say there is no truth, rather than admitting you have the capacity to be wrong. And, if anything, it is the subjectivist, not the objectivist, which exalts objectivity to such a high status!

Philosophy Forum

Philosophy is Role Play

Quick Links

My Account

able2know