Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 86245 times)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #275 – 2024-07-22, 15:49:34

I'm re-reading this thread from the beginning! At the point I've reached, this is the most reasonable view expressed!

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #276 – 2024-07-22, 16:58:53

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 14:34:23

Seriously, ersi: What about about generalizations is "something separate" from quantification? (Other than multiple unstated premises? ) What is this "something"?

Wow, you got that it's about premises, but you still ask questions, indicating that you actually did not get anything.

In a book, those premises would not be unstated. They would be there, but you'd have forgotten them, because books are a long read, you're a reductionist (all fans of quantification are also reductionists) and your memory is failing anyway.

As to unstated premises, it's a matter of being charitable to the text. The text may not represent your kind of logic and your kind of structure. The continent of Europe is all about the dialogue of different languages and traditions, but Anglo-Americans tend to think that their particular tradition and their particular logic are the only ones.

It's a matter of culture in academia. You do not have culture. You're a redneck who thinks that being a drunken Trumpite makes you superior, including in philosophy and logic. The sad fact is that it self-evidently makes you inferior in every way, including in philosophy and logic. It's particularly sad when I have to say it, i.e. it is somehow not self-evident for you.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 14:34:23

So, you admit that "logic" is a language that you don't speak?!

And again you rush to prove my point for me. 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.

For example mathematically 1+1=2, but in human terms, 1+1, if it is a man and a woman who form a family, it equals more than two. Another example: One woman carries a baby in nine months, but you cannot make two women carry a baby in half the time, even though mathematically it should somehow compute and the managerial class is trying hard to apply it to the general population. The philosophical point that I am making in this paragraph is about ontology, about kinds of things in order to identify, among other purposes, where analogies are permitted and where prohibited. This used to be the strong point in the continental tradition, but it all went haywire with the upswing of postmodernism across the globe.

The examples I just gave above can also be called engineerial logic, which is not a language, but a matter of world experience and depth of reasoning, identifying categories, kinds, and scopes.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 14:34:23

BTW: NAZIism was and is -in my opinion^[1] one of the most heinous and reprehensible social and political movements I know of. If someone I knew didn't revile it, I'd be very concerned!^[2]

Go ahead, argue for it. For now these are emotional statements without context or, taking what else is known about you on this forum, self-contradictory, since you are pro-Trump which makes you pro-dictatorship and anti-institutional. Let's see if you can muster a logical case against Nazis.

¹Which I'm willing to support — that is, argue for!↵

²That Communism has resulted in as much or more misery and murder is debatable... No?
But, but... their motives were good?!?↵

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #277 – 2024-07-24, 08:33:00

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-22, 08:58:53

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!

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!

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?^[1]^[2]

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?

Mostly, a waste of time. No?!

¹Is the world, cosmos, or everything (a difficult word to define, no?

) corruptible or constructible by the mere opinions of men? Why not of whales? Do you really crave incoherence that much?

↵

²Excuse me for appropriating a "Continental" trope: Capitalizing and enclosing the word in double-quote marks makes it something new...

No?!
And, damn!, italicization too?! That must make it super extra caliifragicalistic!
(But not to worry! Attend my lectures, buy my books, and you'll see: All Will Be Explained! — Okay: I think I now understand the YouTuber's point!

)
In the formalisms I prefer, quoting a noun makes the quote refer to an object's name. "Boston" stands for the name of a city in Massachusetts, whereas Boston refers to the city. (Recall Frege's example of the planet Venus as the morning star and the evening star...)
↵

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #278 – 2024-07-24, 15:21:20

That's your anti-Nazi argument?

To put it very mildly with undeserved kindness, you overpromised and underdelivered.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #279 – 2024-07-25, 01:02:56

What I said was:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 06:34:23

If someone I knew didn't revile it, I'd be very concerned!

Apparently, you don't understand the function of a conditional... I don't know anyone who is pro-Nazi. (Present company excepted? Do I need to convince you that Nazi ideology is bad, ersi?)

Somehow being called pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi has some magical connection to philosophy, logic, and formal systems?!
To use a term favored by you: Doofus!