schopenhauer1

Sure, but wouldn't that be if we believed that logic was completely conventional? Here we can split up something like "natural logic" (the rationalizi...

Yes. Also may I add, "sensing" is doing the work of two meanings that shouldn't be confused here. 1) Sensing- akin to "responding in a behavioral kind...

Glad we are on a philosophy forum and can adjust to the big picture and zoom in where necessary (and not stay in the weeds unnecessarily because- logi...

At heart, is how it is that "sensing" comes from physiological processes. The homunculus fallacy rears its head when you assume the process and sensin...

As I was saying to Leon, the "foundation" to logic would be a meta-logical theory, not the axioms/logical systems themselves.

Yes, I did notice that downplaying of idealism. The reason I bring up his philosophy is here we have an example of a scientifically-oriented philosoph...

Added more

I get what you are saying, but I still think you are using foundation as "axiomatic", in the definitions I described- that is to say, "This seems like...

So my problem again here is the use of "foundational". This is a slippery word. The way you are all using it is basically "axiomatic". I take "axiomat...

What's the "foundation" mean here? Presumably, natural human reasoning, something akin to inferencing, let's say, is of an imprecise nature. It just n...

I thought we agreed, formal logic is conventionalized ways of thinking :p. It can only be an approximation of our thinking, but not our thinking itsel...

Sure, but as this exercise shows, the logic can stifle the analysis as well, if not used correctly, or even if used correctly. :up: I think we should ...

I get it, but was trying to see if there is a takeaway. My question still stands, what’s the use of symbolic logic if the analysis comes before the lo...

I ask you the same: At what realm do you suppose symbolic logic makes sense besides mathematic proofs? Just philosophy journals as a way to gain stree...

:up: At what realm do you suppose symbolic logic makes sense besides mathematic proofs? Just philosophy journals as a way to gain street cred, that on...

@"Leontiskos" @"Hanover" I guess the silence speaks for itself :meh:

Yep, makes sense. So I guess what's the bigger picture? We can do funny things with symbolic logic seems a bit arbitrary. We need more than symbolic l...

Does this whole exercise imply something about logic's usefulness with natural language? :chin:. If there is a step before logical notation that is ne...

:up:

Same question https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/939929

Can you have a non-sequitur critique of a structurally valid statement? Does content matter?

No.

I don't see how the conclusion can be derived conditionally from the premises- it is tacked on.

Why isn't the conclusion just a non-sequitur?

I'd tend to agree, but I think what's going on here is that physicalism is a set of beliefs that one commits to when answering questions regarding the...

What is the difference between "scientism" and let's say something like a "pansemiosis"? Would scientism not add any more than what is gleaned from th...

I think I did set out a historical framework for how this developed though: That is to say, you cannot discount how the capacities of language led to ...

Doesn’t ground mean some sort of cognitive capacity? Learning to use this capacity, and having this capacity in the first place are two different thin...

I thought it interesting. I’m not sure id characterize it as metaphysical, certainly a case of “mental affects/effects reality”. Beliefs shouldn’t cre...

What do you suppose this can be characterized as? For example, superstitions that manifest in physical realities for that person as if they are real- ...

Funny, because that's the exact word I was going to use :lol:

You seem to summon the philosophy of apokrisis. The all-encompassing "information" of the language-species AND the universe versus the context-depende...

Self-recognizing as bad habit seems to be vague then. You are stating a truism rather than a normative course of action.

At what point though is it incumbent upon the person with the "bad (cultural) habit" to change them, ethically? When it leads to harm? When should a c...

Sure, but there was something in German society at that time whereby when the leadership was defeated, and the country basically conquered militarily,...

Metaphysics, in my view, provides "aesthetic frameworks" rather than definitive answers. For example, a physicist proposing the "many worlds" hypothes...

:up:

I basically agree. Now, the more complex question though, is when does it become incumbent upon people of a certain culture to evaluate a possible neg...

Yes I fully agree. Please see my full reply (which includes more-or-less my birdseyeview of language and its efficacy) in the post to J above: https:/...

But why should it be so puzzling with theories of evolutionary adaptation/exaptation? That is to say, clearly our species has a linguistic capacity. A...

Cool. :smile: :up:

Sure, I didn't say that perception/basic experiential sensation isn't prior to language. Rather, I am simply saying that language seems to have a logi...

A thought came to mind about Kant's (still useful) way of breaking up the world. Logic is a way of recognizing rules. This is how information is parse...

And so the question becomes interesting as to: a) Why would our language/logic correspond to the world? b) How do we know something is veridically acc...

What about holding hostages of another country which in turn holds your own people hostage? Your version is 20 years old. Though I know trends make a ...

I won't open that can of worms at this time.. Witt's theory of language in context/use and shift away from language as static correspondence, etc. How...

So what I mean is, basically, as I see it, the Tractatus is simply a common sense point of view. X event happens in the world, we make statements that...

That’s why Tractatus is confusing. It posits an ontology but doesn’t want to remain there too long. Objects, state of affairs. Call them “real” or tok...

Added more

How do you know? You are referring to something. Yet your reference is cognitively something. That doesn’t have to be a state of affairs.