Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Reply #20 –
why should the first-order predicate calculus have been invented in the middle ages? What seemed to be leading up to it? What necessitated it? Or what would have been the benefits, had it been invented?
1. Because most of the work in logic done by some admittedly brilliant men for centuries was inconsequential! (Some people still today haven't learned the little that they presented… Ambiguity and syllogisms using classes with no members, being the most obvious difficulties.) I'd prefer the syntax of a formalization of logic to make plain or obviate most semantic impediments to reasoning correctly! But you and I have different definitions of "reasoning correctly":
I only require that one's premises require one's conclusion; from there, we can talk about the reasons for accepting or rejecting those premises. From numerous examples, I've determined that you require others to accept your premises…
2. Oops! I've just answered your other questions, too! My bad.
Without a formalism of logic that helps us to analyze terms, the "syllogizers" are often content to "spin their wheels" and, one would have thought, they'd have noticed how thread-bare their tires had become…
Didn't De Saussure argue that the meaning of particular words in particular languages were essentially arbitrary? Which is to say, your "in my native language it's a strict impossibility to use 'invent' in this way. Logic and its glory can only be a discovery, not invention" is mere ignorance or subterfuge on your part: You can't claim that the distinction is not permitted, because "your" language -so far as you know- doesn't have a ready-to-hand expression for it!
One possibility that occurs to me is that you lack access to the common store of ideas you yourself (and Balfrager!) have posited, but not explained — to my satisfaction… So: There are ideas that you can't understand because your language doesn't have a word for them?
How would you gain an un-impeded access? Who or what were you impeded by? And why…?
Or are you content to say your language is best, mine inferior; hence, you don't need to understand what I'm saying to refute it?
There's a reason why most mystics are hermits…
You might as well argue that I changed your meaning by replacing your double-quote signs with single-quote signs around your invent above… Either we are communicating, one or both of us won't, or one or both of us can't.
That, too, I find an interesting situation! One worthy of exploring…
————————————————
"There are ideas that you can't understand because your language doesn't have a word for them?"
Alternatively, "because you don't know a word for it, the idea expressed is nonsense or wrong?" How is that explained, in terms of eternal, ideal objects that pre-exist linguistic expression?