• Rafaella Leon
    59
    The relationship that exists between the world of logic and the world of experience is one of the most important themes in philosophy, because the philosophical ability (the philosophical technique) consists precisely in know how to mediate: know which categories, what are the appropriate terms, what are appropriate questions and non-appropriate questions. All philosophical technique consists of this. It’s not about an ‘art of thinking’ because thinking we already know spontaneously. Nor is it about “perceive reality”, because we can do that as well. The problem is the articulation between these two things: it is how to think about reality, not about thinking about anything.

    Without this constant exercise of going back from thoughts to reality, we may become fundamentalists, no longer making sure that the sentences in which we say believe correspond to something in reality. You would take sentences as such — as sentences — and clings to them. Of course this is of total irrationality, but it’s the norm in virtually every public discussion these days. Rarely does one appear who is aware of the terms he is using (which may have been taken from the politics of economics, religion, etc) that must be translatable in terms of a recognizable experience — by himself first, and by his listener, in second.

    The gulf between personal, real experience and general schemas (the general concepts, the general sentences we use to reason about it) is the constant today. This evidently denotes a situation of barbarism and irrationality, where all discussions (without exception) are useless, because they never refer to anything at all. It is the exchange of things that are worth nothing for others that are worth nothing either. It is exchanging words for words. These words often, though they have no phatic meaning (do not refer to anything), serve as emblems of personal attitudes: the subject thinks that speaking certain things (or certain phrases) qualifies him as a good, decent, respectable person; while speaking other phrases qualifies him as evil, wicked — a reprobate, in short. Then the words are used as personal emblems, as if the subject stuck some badges on the body.

    There are things that have identifiable logical content but nothing in the experience. For example, if I say, “The yellow dragon with red balls, which speaks japanese”. It is a very clear concept — logically, there is no contradiction. But this is contradictory, not with logic (not with itself), but with reality. Dante said that grammar is the material construction of thought. Logic is the ideal construction of thought (i.e., what concepts it corresponds to) — if you have no idea of material construction, you will have much less of the logical syntax of the thing. Rhetoric is the psychological construction: the adaptation of that to the real situation of communication. Note that none of these three gives us the objective content of the language: one speaks of the construction material; the other of ideal connections; the third, the speech and communication situation. None of these three can teach us how to connect thoughts and reality — this is the philosophical technique itself.
  • Garth
    112
    “The yellow dragon with red balls, which speaks japanese”. It is a very clear concept — logically, there is no contradiction. But this is contradictory, not with logic (not with itself), but with reality.Rafaella Leon

    I think this is almost correct, except that you can't produce a contradiction between the yellow dragon and reality without considering both in terms of pure logic. They can retain their qualitative (nonlogical) part, but must have also a logical part so that they can be in contradiction. Otherwise you can't say the yellow dragon isn't there. I could have it in my pokeball, just waiting to be summoned to disprove you.
  • Manuel
    69
    I'm not sure I follow. This argument you put forth seems or appears to assume that we are aware of reality directly. That is, that mountain over there I'm pointing to, is being perceived directly. But if I don't remind my self that there is that mountain over there, and that I have thoughts that categorize things and puts them to order, I may start losing my grasp on reality? Well, reality is almost always mediated by beliefs, expectations, moods, impressions and so on.

    Unless you consciously suppress all the things you bring to any experience of reality, you'll always have this trouble lurking in the background. But even if you could see anything without any preconceptions, and you do some kind of phenomenology, that reality you are seeing is still a construction of the mind on the occasion of sense experience. You cannot force yourself to deny that you are seeing a mountain now, if in fact there is a mountain in front of you. It's part of being a human being to see the world the way we do, in addition to everything else we may bring to our picture of reality.

    Lastly, I'm also not sure what you are saying about words. Even if the "subject thinks that speaking certain things (or certain phrases) qualifies him as a good, decent, respectable person; while speaking other phrases qualifies him as evil, wicked" were true, which sometimes is the case, I don't see why thinking about words referring to anything would make that person authentic. Words don't refer, people do. I don't see why thinking about what words to use, outside quite specific circumstances, matters much, as long as a person isn't bothering anyone else. So I'm not seeing how this has to do with logic. Maybe it's related to psychology instead.
  • Rxspence
    29
    I like where you are going with this.
    The most important thing is to confirm each persons understanding of the subject and predicate.
    I have seen a room full of 30 year old dungeon and dragon enthusiasts debate this very topic
    with great enthusiasm .
    Silly, but it hones their listening skills, creativity, and humor.
    and they are very strict about the premise and the (facts) that are created on the spot and must be incorporated.
  • TheMadFool
    8.4k
    it is how to think about reality, not about thinking about anything.Rafaella Leon

    In logic the emphasis is on how to think about anything not just reality. The title of your thread is "Logic is the world of possibilities..." and that, as far as I can tell, includes hypothetical worlds so long as such worlds don't entail contradictions [contradictions are impossible]. That said, there are strains of logic that are inconsistency/contradiction friendly and possibility/impossibility is no longer an issue. In this way logic achieves escape velocity and is no longer restricted by the gravity well of possibility/impossibility.

    Without this constant exercise of going back from thoughts to reality, we may become fundamentalists, no longer making sure that the sentences in which we say believe correspond to something in realityRafaella Leon

    You're using a popular definition of truth viz. a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to reality. It goes by the name the correspondence theory of truth. Although truth is important, what we mean by truth isn't the main concern of logic; the mainstay of logic is correct thinking and it focuses on patterns of reasoning [argument forms] that if fed with true premises spit out true conclusions. So, yes, logic, employing arguments, establishes the truth of propositions but which theory of truth one subscribes to - there's the pragmatic and the coherent theories of truth to name a few - isn't a logical matter unless you're interested in the justifications and thereby the soundness of the arguments for these multifarious theories.

    Then the words are used as personal emblems, as if the subject stuck some badges on the body.Rafaella Leon

    That's not logic either. I've always wondered about whether we're defined by our beliefs. The reigning consensus is that we are. So, a person who has racist beliefs is defined by racism, a person who believes in Jesus Christ is defined as a Christian and so on. Belies constitute people's identity.

    Yet, we can be disabused of such beliefs - a person can give up faer racism and can abandon Christianity. When such happens do we lose our identity? Received opinion says no!, we don't lose our identity.

    What gives?

    An analogy might help us in understanding the situation better. Take beliefs to be like clothes. On one hand, people seem to think beliefs define who we are [we are the clothes] and on the other hand people also believe we're different from our beliefs [we're not the clothes]; we adopt beliefs like we wear different clothes. Opinions are divided on the issue. Personally, I think it's odd to identify ourselves as a particular set of beliefs [a specific worldview] because beliefs/worldviews can change and how and why depends on a multitude of factors ranging from biases that are part and parcel of being human to strong justifications.

    “The yellow dragon with red balls, which speaks japanese”. It is a very clear concept — logically, there is no contradiction. But this is contradictory, not with logic (not with itself), but with reality.Rafaella Leon

    As you said, logic, there are n number of them, simply prescribes rules on how to think and thinking about hypotheticals such as yellow dragons with red balls are totally legit grist for the logic mill.
  • Wayfarer
    10.9k
    The problem is the articulation between these two things: it is how to think about reality, not about thinking about anything.Rafaella Leon

    A textbook passage on 'the correspondence theory of truth' (gleaned from previous exchanges on philosophy forums).

    'According to correspondence theory, truth consists in the agreement of our thought with reality. This view seems to conform rather closely to our ordinary common sense usage when we speak of truth.

    The flaws in the definition arise when we ask what is meant by "agreement" or "correspondence" of ideas and objects, beliefs and facts, thought and reality. In order to test the truth of an idea or belief we must presumably compare it with the reality in some sense.

    1- In order to make the comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?

    2- The making of the comparison is itself a fact about which we have a belief. We have to believe that the belief about the comparison is true. How do we know that our belief in this agreement is "true"? This leads to an infinite regress, leaving us with no assurance of true belief.

    Randall, J. & Buchler, J.; Philosophy: An Introduction. p133
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    The relationship that exists between the world of logic and the world of experience is one of the most important themes in philosophy, because the philosophical ability (the philosophical technique) consists precisely in know how to mediate: know which categories, what are the appropriate terms, what are appropriate questions and non-appropriate questions.Rafaella Leon
    Logic is the world of possibilities, not reality

    The title of this thread sounds like the common distinction made by empirical scientists from theoretical scientists & philosophers. Empirical methods study the "world of experience" by examining actual physical things. But Theoretical methods study the "world of Logic" by examining ideal meta-physical concepts. I call those parallel worlds "Reality" and "Ideality". Empirical methods are typically Reductive, in the sense that they dissect their objects into smaller parts. But Theoretical methods may also be Holistic, in that they attempt to put the parts back together in their larger context. This is easier to do in theory than in practice, because Ideality is a world of possibilities instead of actualities.

    Empiricists sometimes dismiss such speculations on the future as "guessing" --- or even worse, as "Philosophy". But most scientific experiments involve some degree of probabilistic projections into the future, based on experience from the past. Fortunately, Probability mathematics allows us to put a precise number on our guesses. But mathematical "experiments" and models are essentially philosophical explorations into the "world of Logic), hence, of Philosophy.

    So, one aspect of the role of philosophers is to know "how to mediate" between Reality and Ideality. Unfortunately, too many scientists don't trust the realm of Logical Possibilities, because it allows us to imagine things that are unreal, and non-empirical. Which is traditionally the purview of Religion, and Theology. However, in areas of research with which we have little direct experience, such as Quantum Mechanics, speculative Axioms and Probabilities are unavoidable. So, when scientists make use of such tools, they are acting as philosophers to determine which tools are appropriate for the problem in question. :smile:


    The Difference Between Empirical and Theoretical Probability : Theoretical probability, also known as a priori probability, is calculated before any event has taken place.
    https://sciencing.com/difference-between-empirical-theoretical-probability-8427443.html

    Logical Possibility : "Logically possible" refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

    Axioms : There are no scientific axioms. Axioms apply only to math and logic.
    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-axioms-of-the-scientific-method

    Ideality :
    * In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
    1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. "To measure" is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
    2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.

    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
  • gurk
    12
    “The yellow dragon with red balls, which speaks japanese”. It is a very clear conceptRafaella Leon

    Oh no! Here's another "clear concept" for you:

    ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.
  • Baden
    11.3k
    Copypasta plagiarism.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet