For example, "It claims states of constraint"--I'm not sure what "It" is given the way you've constructed your sentences. — Terrapin Station
I just can't follow you most of the time. — Terrapin Station
A: I said, "I have a dog."
If one knew everything about my dog, one would knoFw all sorts of things about how she relates to aspects of the universe... that she likes tennis balls, that she weighs 15 lbs, how far she is from Neptune, and so on. These are truths entailed by A. Is that right?
That's sort of making use of Leibniz's complete individual concept.
"It" is "entailment", of course. And the construction of the sentences indeed entails that interpretation on any reasonable view. — apokrisis
I don't know if I agree with it in general. I am dubious about words like 'anchoring'. But in this case it seems an OK question, the answer to which, I think, is that it is anchored in our nature: we are programmed by evolution to be inclined to follow the rules of the logic game. — andrewk
Do you think there are other types of entailment besides logical? I think entailment works within a Hegelian dialectic. A dialectical movement which preserves and negates both premises and in doing so generates a synthesis which is negatively determined. I guess what is entailed must be part of the synthesis.
Hegel dialectic has three moments:
1) understanding of the subject, its definition, what it means.
2) It cancels, negates and preserves 1) in a moment of self-sublation
3) the moment in which a new unity is grasped, the synthesis. — Cavacava
I also thought about entailment that might be involved in genealogical arguments, but these arguments are, it seems to me, to me more speculative reconstructions of history, which offer alternate explanations and suggest new possibilities. I not sure but don't think anything like logical or dialectical entailments are involved. — Cavacava
I think it follows that insight is intrinsic to both analysis and synthesis. In the former we intuit how things may be broken down into parts and in the latter we can intuit how elements not obviously related to one another may possibly be related. — John
Also, there is a distinction between cognition and re-cognition. Although it might also be said that cognition must always already involve recognition. In any case recognition is not merely the registering of a pattern, but the knowing of that pattern as being the same as or alike to another. Such a thing obviously cannot be rationally deduced, so I conclude that it must be intuited. — John
Now that you mention it, I think that evolution may possibly also have a role in the type of logic we mostly tend to use - eg a preference for including double-negative elimination in our rules rather than restricting ourselves to constructivist logic, but I am less sure of that. — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.