Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Reply #277 –
Projecting overeagerly, you commit the crime that you accuse me of, namely unstated premises. There are at least following unstated premises in this statement of yours:
- Logic is a language
- It's singular, presumably directly translatable to English
- The scope of logic is universal
All untrue. Your kind of formal logic is similar to math and the scope of math is not universal. Your logic purportedly includes a method called Universal Quantification but the label is false advertising — you have been lied to.
Logic is a rudimentary language.
There are not only various axiomatizations of logic, some are incommensurate with the real world! ![Smiley :)](https://dndsanctuary.eu/smileys/myopera/smile.gif)
The last "hidden" premise you stated: "The scope of logic is universal" is — except for mystics — unavoidable! For example, valid syllogisms are what they are. (As are valid quantificational schema...) If you reject logic, you reject reason! Admittedly and admirably, many people do! (But most people never even consider it an issue.)
What mystifies me is that you can't distinguish between Logic and Rhetoric...
If you think there's a a System of Thought that is perfect, you're a fool! If you think that improvements of symbolic techniques are heresy., you're — what? An antiquarian? A Luddite? A Lysenkoist? Maybe a poor student! ![Smiley :)](https://dndsanctuary.eu/smileys/myopera/smile.gif)
Please explain how Dialectical Materialism -as applied- is any better than Naive Realism or any form of Idealism? Or do you think the opinions of men have a creative effect on Reality?
Put another way: What the hell good is it? What's it for?
One more point: Does anyone dispute that all this verbiage was prompted by ersi's inability to accept the simple fact that 1st and 2nd order Predicate Calculus subsumes and transcends The Syllogistic Logic? ![Smiley :)](https://dndsanctuary.eu/smileys/myopera/smile.gif)
Mostly, a waste of time. No?!