Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 86378 times)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #250 – 2015-11-22, 05:56:17

I think the word you're looking for is ennui… The perfect motivation, for a nihilist.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #251 – 2015-11-22, 11:45:36

No, no, I'm no Nihilist. At all.
Such ennui is the certain result of assisting to European's decadence under the emerging of total emptiness.
Post Modernism is the nec plus ultra of Nihilism.

We'll turn nothing but a vague and indistinct memory of past times of glory and grandeur. Probably considered guilty by the New History insects.

Who cares...

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #252 – 2015-11-24, 06:09:08

My nostalgia makes me care, Belfrager… And my optimism, blunted and buffeted as it has been: The civilization from which my country spawned is not one I'd like to see submerged in the muck, and asphyxiated…

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #253 – 2015-11-26, 00:28:11

Since we still live in a civilized way, (I don't know for how long) have a drink...

Cheers

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #254 – 2015-12-01, 07:17:16

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-11-25, 16:28:11

Since we still live in a civilized way, (I don't know for how long) have a drink...

Wine takes too long (and whiskey too short) a time, so I drink

and go on, day after day.

Logic tells us what we should believe.
Experience confutes it, often as not.
Science is a method and a knot
to be untied, by the ancient sieve

of truth. So:
What do we hold to, and have to hold to?
What works! Silly as it seems, that's it;
what works allows us to nearly fit
reality, and our perceptions. You

would be hard pressed to find another
criterion that would do as well.
Of course, most wouldn't and few would tell
us anything, except what our mother

taught us: Milk is sweet; or sour. Knowing
which, we learn where we are going…
And Truth? Not that. No.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #255 – 2015-12-02, 23:54:19

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-01, 07:17:16

Wine takes too long (and whiskey too short) a time, so I drink and go on, day after day.

It explains it all...
Between tantra sex and precoce ejaculation you prefer to turn impotent...

Philosophically of course.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #256 – 2024-01-13, 15:05:17

This video is a review and critique of Misali's seximal system, which according to Misali is the best way to count. The video argues that the binary system is far better. After watching it, I am convinced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDDaEVcwIJM

What I find most impressive about the video is that it even makes the binary system palatable as a human-language system (Chapter 6 at 1:00:15). However, at this point I slightly disagree because I got inspired to invent a slightly modified system that would work better in my opinion, even though my system would not match the notation as neatly as the system proposed in the video. I will probably spend the weekend testing my system out.

Arithmetic never was my strong suit. This is exactly why I went to work at a bank: I heard they have computers for counting so that I don't have to do any of it. Unfortunately we are in civilisational decline and crappy Microsoft products are increasingly not up to the simple tasks of counting and computing. A few years ago I had to buy a soroban to physically start practising arithmetic in order to be able to get work done.

By the way, soroban computing is a fantastic skill to possess. It can be easily adapted to any base.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #257 – 2024-01-14, 11:27:49

Quote from: ersi on 2024-01-13, 07:05:17

Arithmetic never was my strong suit.

Nor was logic, despite your pretensions!

There's much to be said in favor of the logistic thesis — but nothing that requires or forbids the grade-school learning of abilities, such as basic arithmetic! If you have difficulties with such, it's a matter of memory and apperception... Since you claim to be a philosopher of sorts, shouldn't you recognize and explicate your weird reasoning for rejecting modern logic?

Choosing a base for arithmetic is trivially inconsequential. Unless one is -shall we say- idiosyncratic? (I mean, of course, idiopathic!)

I'd not have commented here but for your recent post! But dear ersi I stand by my inane verse!

But you've given me yet another chance to post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6OaYPVueW4

I'd agree that one needn't be a wiz at arithmetic to deal with dollars and cents. But innumeracy is indeed a debilitation...

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #258 – 2024-01-14, 13:20:40

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-01-14, 11:27:49

such as basic arithmetic! If you have difficulties with such, it's a matter of memory and apperception...

I passed, so I did not have difficulties to any significant degree. And I may be underestimating myself, since I am comparing myself to my primary school deskmate who was the school primus, particularly in arithmetic, being able to calculate large numbers in his head and even play blind chess.

Anyway, there are several areas in math, arithmetic being one, geometry being another. I was excellent in geometry.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #259 – 2024-07-21, 11:28:10

According to analytical philosophers, continental philosophy is bad. Continental philosophers do not provide arguments, don't consider counter-arguments, they are frauds etc. They don't lay out any clear definitions, premises or conclusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fJNiPbIbZQ

To the analytical philosophers who still haven't figured it out, let me clarify what all this analytic-continental divide is about. Most importantly, the difference is that continental writers are non-English, while analytic philosophers are Anglo-American, and being Anglo-American they are monolingual doofuses who cannot comprehend what is written in languages other than English. This is the most important aspect of the divide: Language barrier.

The language barrier is so strict that the divide is more properly called the divide between Anglo-Americans and continental philosophy. So-called analytical philosophy is simply philosophy written in English. It is no more analytical than continental philosophy is. It is just Anglophones puffing themselves up, as if they were analytical while continentals were not.

Had Wittgenstein stayed in Germany and written in German, he'd be continental, but since he moved to UK and wrote in English, he is counted as analytical. So the most important aspect of the divide is language.

In addition to being monolingual doofuses, Anglo-Americans have a hard time understanding even when things are translated into English for them. The divide also involves a cultural barrier.

None of the accusations about arguments and definitions is true. Granted, there are some edge cases that I will mention later, namely pseudo-philosophy where the accusations are true, but pseudo-philosophy also affects analytical (i.e. Anglo-American) philosophy.

What are arguments and what are definitions? Continental philosophy stems from scholasticism where proper logic followed the syllogistic form. In the syllogistic form, preceding statements are premises to the following statements, definitions are inherent to the concept system and conclusions are spelled out in the corollaries.

What does it mean to say that definitions are inherent to the concept system? It means that definitions arise in conceptual analysis of the concepts used. The concepts are the vocabulary or terminology of the argumentation and definitions arise in contradistinction of the concepts.

The conceptual analysis is something that the reader must do. Nevertheless, in many cases, such as semi-scientific or theological writings, such as Aquinas, the definitions are spelled out exactly in the form of definitions, in which case it is just a matter of acknowledging that the definitions are there.

So there we have it: Anglo-American philosophers want everything spelled out for them, they are bad readers and sloppy in their understanding of the history of philosophical traditions. When premises, conclusions, and in some cases also definitions are literally there, Anglo-Americans just refuse to acknowledge them in their wilful blindness.

Another quite important aspect of the divide is in the kind of philosophy that the two "schools of thought" are doing. The most fundamental topics in philosophy proper are epistemology and metaphysics. Anglo-Americans overemphasise epistemology, while continentals are usually grounded in metaphysics.

Epistemology is (formal) logic, spelling things out in a given "valid" form. According to Anglo-American, any and all "sound reasoning" follows "valid logical form" and this is what Anglo-Americans call "analysis" and this is why they call themselves "analytical".

Metaphysics on the other hand involves the principles to study ontology (existence, reality, the questions What things are? and What fundamentally exists?). Metaphysics is an exercise in conceptual modelling. Conceptual modelling is itself an analysis, no less analytical than whatever is done in the analytical tradition, except that it is not an exercise in epistemology, but in metaphysics, which is unexpected for Anglo-Americans, so they are struck with blindness and cannot see any definitions and arguments, because they don't know what the whole thing is about in the first place.

Metaphysics seeks to comprehend the nature of things. Metaphysicists study what things are alike and what things are not, so the best representatives of continental philosophy have a solid grasp of analogies as a philosophical tool, whereas analytical philosophers relegate analogies to pure fiction.

At the rise of enlightenment, scholasticism got a bad rep and both Anglos and continentals distanced themselves from it, but in different ways. Anglos instituted a new formalism according to which in every academic work there need be explicit chapters for definitions, arguments, counter-arguments and final conclusions. All this was in fact present in scholasticism also, but not necessarily in in this order and not always all of it.

Continentals dropped the formalism while keeping the conceptual modelling, and their conceptual modelling is in best cases about metaphysics and ontology, in other cases about psychologising and in worst cases it as an overabstract or disjointed pseudo-intellectual exercise without any ethical purpose or academic value with a faint resemblance to formulaic mathematics or physics. The pseudo-intellectual tendencies that repeatedly afflict analytical philosophy involve applying formal logic where the nature of things does not permit it, overextending an analysis to things where it cannot apply, and false analogies (since Anglos have a weak grasp on analogy as a philosophical tool altogether).

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #260 – 2024-07-22, 02:31:27

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-21, 03:28:10

Had Wittgenstein stayed in Germany and written in German, he'd be continental, but since he moved to UK and wrote in English, he is counted as analytical. So the most important aspect of the divide is language.

Wittgenstein wrote mostly in German, ersi, which you'd know if you'd read him!

I think your beef derives from a lack of familiarity with source materials. So-called "Critical Theories" stem from the materialism of Marx and his view of history. They're political programs posing as philosophy.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #261 – 2024-07-22, 05:10:57

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 02:31:27

I think your beef derives from a lack of familiarity with source materials.

The source material in this case is how philosophers do philosophy, which is what you are unfamiliar with. The analytic-continental divide is exactly how I describe it.

Why is Wittgenstein considered analytical? He became one ever since he became Russell's protégé and was popularised in English. Any other reason? Most crucially: Why is he the only one from the continent who is considered analytical?

And yeah, it was wrong of me to say that Wittgenstein wrote in English. In reality he hardly wrote anything except the Tractatus, letters to Russell, and lecture notes. Ever since Russell took him under his wing, Russell did all the writing on behalf of him, and that determined what Wittgenstein became, namely analytical instead of continental despite all odds.

Edit: "Continental" is among Anglo-Americans just a slur. Wittgenstein is excluded from the slur because Russell likes him, even though Wittgenstein's magnum opus is an exercise in metaphysics, a typically continental treatise.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 02:31:27

So-called "Critical Theories" stem from the materialism of Marx and his view of history. They're political programs posing as philosophy.

"Critical theories" have a very tenuous connection to Marx and they have a very different nature in the West as compared to the universities in Warsaw bloc countries. In the East, they did not proliferate uncontrollably, e.g. there was no "critical race theory" or any pro-LGBT(Qetc.) gender ideology or any so-called grievance studies. These are 100% Western things.

For easterners it is weird that in the West both among anti-Marxists and pro-Marxists it is common to view those theories as Marxist. They simply have no connection to the academia or life in general in Warsaw bloc countries, which has a far more direct connection to Marxism.

Marx and Marxism, that's your kind of slur.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #262 – 2024-07-22, 08:52:22

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-21, 21:10:57

Marx and Marxism, that's your kind of slur.

I understand why you'd say that: I do indeed consider the Marxian view of economic destiny to be simplistic — and, having seen its results, incredibly destructive of human dignity.

Back when I began reading philosophy, Existentialism was all the rage (while Critical Theory was percolating! Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, primarily — although many of the Frankfurt School had emigrated to the U.S. What "continental" philosophers would you recommend?^[1]

¹Outside of Ortega...who I've read in English and Spanish; try his "Some Lessons in Ontology".↵

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #263 – 2024-07-22, 09:07:26

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-22, 05:10:57

For easterners it is weird that in the West both among anti-Marxists and pro-Marxists it is common to view those theories as Marxist. They simply have no connection to the academia or life in general in Warsaw bloc countries, which has a far more direct connection to Marxism.

The Frankfurter Schule is neomarxist, a parallel development independent from Marxism-Leninism. The Warsaw bloc countries don't have a monopoly on Marxism. Besides which, Marx simply attempted to formulate a social theory, not dogma set in stone.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #264 – 2024-07-22, 09:32:22

Quote from: Frenzie on 2024-07-22, 09:07:26

The Warsaw bloc countries don't have a monopoly on Marxism.

I wish more people knew this. Too often there is an assumption that some blue-haired crude feminist protesting in an American university campus means that America is about to become USSR and Russians are around the corner.

USSR was not made by blue-haired feminists nor were there any blue-haired feminists in USSR. Feminism was not a positive concept at all in USSR. Instead, traditional family values were seen as fundamental to a stable country.

The "gender ideology" in USSR was based on common-sense biology and family values, not on some critical social theory. Claims like "sex is a social construct" could only fly among postmodernists, and postmodernism was strictly that hip Western thing, something that Soviet professors would adopt if they wanted to liberate themselves from USSR mainstream Marxism.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 08:52:22

What "continental" philosophers would you recommend?

You are the kind of dude to whom philosophy does not provide any benefit. You quickly jump into assuming fallacies in others when the fallacies are not there, which indicates a hopelessly immature mind. And you have no reading comprehension.

Instead of philosophy, you are at home with soundbites, slogans, propaganda memes and conspiracy theories. All this because you have not figured out the basics like fact versus opinion. You enjoy some select opinions and you go with them as if they were fact.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #265 – 2024-07-22, 10:54:16

Sociology and political activism are not mutually exclusive. Gramsci was probably the most influential NeoMarxist, no?

But, again, I ask: What Marxist-Lennist or "Continental" philosophers would you recommend?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #266 – 2024-07-22, 11:01:09

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-22, 01:32:22

You are the kind of dude to whom philosophy does not provide any benefit. You quickly jump into assuming fallacies in others when the fallacies are not there, which indicates a hopelessly immature mind. And you have no reading comprehension.

Instead of philosophy, you are at home with soundbites, slogans, propaganda memes and conspiracy theories. All this because you have not figured out the basics like fact versus opinion. You enjoy some select opinions and you go with them as if they were fact.

In other words: You won't or can't put forth anything that makes your case. You prefer insult, invective being your main mode of expression.

But if your purpose is to remake the world, you'll probably have to progress to killing a lot of people — humans being somewhat ornery!

^[1]

An aside: What do you think of Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer"?

¹That's what happened in every Communist country...↵

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #267 – 2024-07-22, 11:11:22

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 10:54:16

But, again, I ask: What Marxist-Lennist or "Continental" philosophers would you recommend?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 11:01:09

But if your purpose is to remake the world, you'll probably have to progress to killing a lot of people — humans being somewhat ornery!

Caught you at your actual agenda again

You are never on topic. Whatever the topic, yours is hyperpartisan hypocrisy of strictly American bent.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #268 – 2024-07-22, 11:22:22

So, you still refuse to recommend any example of "Continental" philosophers — you're just butt-hurt because some non-entity on YouTube called "them" names!

So rich!

You'll remember that I've opined that logic doesn't end with the syllogism? But since that's all you know, your first impulse was to take offense! (And -it's seemed to me- that your first impulse is usually your last: Contemplation is not in your nature and analysis is a matter of rote, not a "seeking of understanding".) Have you since learned some so-called "modern logic"?^[1]

¹You know: 1st or 2nd order quantification theory? I presume you have no interest in mathematical logic, proof theory, and such...

↵

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #269 – 2024-07-22, 11:30:46

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 11:22:22

So, you still refuse to recommend any example of "Continental" philosophers — you're just butt-hurt ...

This definitely came from your butt-hurtedness of being unable to name a single journalist.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 11:22:22

You know: 1st or 2nd order quantification theory?

The problem with quantification is that it fails to acknowledge generalisations as something separate, not subject to quantification. E.g. take the proposition "Nazis are bad." A monolingual doofus Anglo-American self-described philosopher, whose only method is formalistic quantification, would object: "Certainly not all of them are bad. There can be some good ones!" as if this refuted the generalisation.

I see you justify dictatorship and slavery in a similar way, but your way actually lacks any logic. It runs strictly along partisan lines: When Republicans do it, it's good, no matter what they do. But whatever Democrats do, is bad, dictatorship, anti-constitutional erosion of freedoms etc. even when there is no connection except in your imagination.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #270 – 2024-07-22, 12:13:06

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-22, 03:30:46

This definitely came from your butt-hurtedness of being unable to name a single journalist.

What the hell are you -now- talking about?

Journalists: Molly Hemingway, Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibei, John Solomon, Glenn Greenwald... (I suppose you need more, but if your purpose is only your usual "character assassination " that's enough to get you started!

^[1]

Speaking to your edit: "All NAZIs are bad" is cast as '(x) x -> y" where x is "NAZI" and y is "is bad" in quantificational systems... If the cast is affirmed, it indeed says "All NAZIs are bad"!
You just don't understand Universal Quantification. (I suspect, you mean something like "It's necessary that if I call someone a NAZI, they are bad — and you'd better not disagree with me!" — which says a lot more than you'd admit, right, commisar?

¹From where did you get your asking me to name journalists? Seriously...↵

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #271 – 2024-07-22, 12:54:10

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 12:13:06

From where did you get your asking me to name journalists? Seriously...

We arrived here from here https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=3964.msg87900#msg87900

In the same post, you can see that in your mind Soros came up with the idea of human rights (and therefore human rights are a Jewish Illuminati Commie conspiracy that Democrats have fallen for and are un-constitutionally trying to insitute in USA).

This is your character. There has been no character assassination.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 12:13:06

Journalists: Molly Hemingway, Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibei, John Solomon, Glenn Greenwald...

Thanks, finally, except that you put a columnist first (an exclusive columnist, never a reporter or newsreader), confirming that you know no difference between fact and opinion. When you like the opinion, then it's fact for you, and when you dislike a fact, then it's SNL comedy for you (such as Sarah Palin's "You can see Russia from here in Alaska!" which is her repeated statement from a string of consecutive interviews she gave).

Should I indulge you in turn with a list of continental philosophers? Nope. Because:
1. You don't have a good-faith character.
2. Some such authors have come up already in this thread in earlier years, so feel free to read the thread in its entirety if you are interested (which you are not because #1).

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #272 – 2024-07-22, 13:23:47

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-21, 03:28:10

According to analytical philosophers, continental philosophy is bad.

This is your usual form of reasoning! According to whom? (As I said above, some non-entity on YouTube...) That's who you are.
You generalize (even universally!) because your ego can't admit any lack of understanding on your part and, hence, anyone who disagrees with you about anything is a doofus! (Probably your worst acquired word of English But you are a hick, for all your pretensions...

)

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-22, 04:54:10

Should I indulge you in turn with a list of continental philosophers? Nope. Because:
1. You don't have a good-faith character.
2. Some such authors have come up already in this thread in earlier years, so feel free to read the thread in its entirety if you are interested (which you are not because #1).

You forgot
3. I don't actually know of any...

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #273 – 2024-07-22, 13:31:48

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 12:13:06

Speaking to your edit: "All NAZIs are bad" is cast as '(x) x -> y" where x is "NAZI" and y is "is bad" in quantificational systems... If the cast is affirmed, it indeed says "All NAZIs are bad"!
You just don't understand Universal Quantification.

And there we have it. Anglo-Americans overemphasise logic to the detriment of their own reading comprehension. Thanks for proving my point.

When continentals say something like "Nazis are bad," it is tacitly implied that nuances, such as that a few Nazis saved Jews instead of killing them, e.g. the movie-famous Schindler, have been considered and found to be negligible. In a longer treatise, this would also be explicitly stated in earlier pages and "Nazis are bad" would be found a sustainable conclusion regardless of the few counter-examples.

Whereas Anglo-Americans in their formalistic cretinism think that by applying quantification they are conclusively refuting the given statement, not caring to digest what it is that they are trying to refute. You are justifying Nazis here, do you understand? Nevermind, it is of course fully expected that you are pro-Nazi, just as you are pro-dictatorship and pro-slavery, as long as it is Republicans doing it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-07-22, 13:23:47

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-21, 03:28:10
According to analytical philosophers, continental philosophy is bad.
This is your usual form of reasoning! According to whom? (As I said above, some non-entity on YouTube...)

It was according to entities quoted in the video. The video may have been uploaded by a non-entity, but the video was not about himself.

Note that reading comprehension is up to the reader. You demonstrated that a Youtube video is over your head, so let's not wonder about philosophy.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #274 – 2024-07-22, 14:34:23

I said '(x) x -> y" where x is "NAZI" and y is "is bad" in quantificational systems... If the cast is affirmed, it indeed says "All NAZIs are bad"! (If y is "are European" it says "NAZIs are European".)
It should have been "(x)(y) x -> y". But as usual, you didn't notice. (Well, I've been drinking... I have to, to put up with your drivel!

)

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-22, 03:30:46

The problem with quantification is that it fails to acknowledge generalisations as something separate, not subject to quantification.

You mean prejudices or stereotypes?

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

) What is this "something"?

Quote from: ersi on 2024-07-22, 05:31:48

Whereas Anglo-Americans in their formalistic cretinism think that by applying quantification they are conclusively refuting the given statement, not caring to digest what it is that they are trying to refute. You are justifying Nazis here, do you understand? Nevermind, it is of course fully expected that you are pro-Nazi, just as you are pro-dictatorship and pro-slavery, as long as it is Republicans doing it.

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

Nothing about the rendering I gave of your sentence refutes it. (Where did you get that idea?) Nor does my rendering in any way justify its antecedent substitution... Your generalization is (almost) universally accepted.^[1]

BTW: NAZIism was and is -in my opinion^[2] 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!^[3]

¹Is that what you mean when you say "generalization" — as opposed to "quantification"? How -in a formal system- should one distinguish such? Wouldn't a quantified modal logic help to analyze such statements?
Or do we have to rely on comissars to keep us plebes honest? (GoodThink and BadThink are your primary categories...)↵

²Which I'm willing to support — that is, argue for!↵

³That Communism has resulted in as much or more misery and murder is debatable... No?
But, but... their motives were good?!?↵