Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Reply #75 –
You really mean to undermine your own integrity […]
Hm. Let me define a type of philosophy, Garfunkelism: Interpretation of systematic schemes via idiosyncratic obscurity…•
The practitioners of this type of philosophy take the creative (often exploratory or speculative) work of others and "dogmatize" it; then spend the rest of their time defending their own misunderstandings!
Is everyone here familiar with the musical duo Simon and Garfunkel? The later was often asked, by fans, which he was responsible for: the words or the music? Of course, Paul Simon was the composer of both, and the guitar player (accompanist). Art was a vocal performer, an interpretive artist…and a quite good one! Wasn't that enough?
That others expected more of him did pique Art Garfunkel… But he didn't take the final step of Garfunkelism: Thinking that he'd actually created Paul Simon's songs — by singing them well… And, thence, being angry at the world at large for not recognizing his "contribution"…
ersi, you require -psychologically- a closed system, answers to all questions derivable, questions to be either easily answered or deemed incoherent… You're not that different from the Logical Positivists.
You avoid their fate by boxing (putting in a box) your views and ignoring anything outside of your box.
When I say I have strong nominalistic tendencies, I do indeed mean that I see no reason to accept Platonic (Metaphysical) Realism… (Or Idealism: the terms are equivalent!) But, before that, I mean that I've heard people speak, read what they've written; and I've rejected theories that require full knowledge of some systemization of linguistics, before I (or anyone else) can understand such.
Quine's holism makes much sense; but it, too, is deficient… (I mention him, since you seem to think I argue from Authority… ) As someone once said, cogently, "The map is not the territory."
Why must Red be granted existential superiority? Can we not just see how "red" is used…?
(And can't the blind student of physics and physiology still understand electromagnetic radiation and optics?)
Why must a mathematician who poses a problem and, then, its solution…be coerced to say, "I didn't create anything… I just stumbled across something left there unnoticed, before."
Because -as you said, in "your" language, the distinction is differently apprehended? LOL! Is that the fault of your language or of your understanding? I don't know… Perhaps your socialization was particularly harsh, and you absolutely have to be right — meaning, whoever disagrees with you (your formulations) must be wrong!
I'd demur… That is, I don't have to be right; but our common experience must be accounted for. And –this is my predilection– that no more than necessary be introduced (invented!) to accommodate such accountings.
You accuse me of incoherence or "bad faith"… Back at you, I call you an autocrat.
————————————————————————————
* My apologies to Art! (The singer Garfunkel, whose performances are joyful and enjoyable.)