And Wittgenstein's story is precisely that classical logic lacks the resources needed for such an account. (He tried.) — Srap Tasmaner
I would have said rather that he showed there was no question here - that the notion of being was not the sort of thing that might be subject to further analysis, but just the sort of thing that has to be taken as granted — Banno
Wittgenstein doesn't always and unconditionally give in to the temptation to say "here my spade is turned". He dissects many things other people are happy to take for granted. — Srap Tasmaner
that there is stuff to talk about is a fine candidate for a hinge proposition. It's much the same as presuming the bishop moves diagonally is a precursor to playing chess. — Banno
.and why should we fall back to this anachronistic greek interpretation when we have better ones in our formal logic? — Banno
Nor does formal logic presume that individuals persist over time. — Banno
It's timeless, because it was designed for mathematics. — Srap Tasmaner
So far as I am aware, persistence is not a notion used in formal logic. Nor does formal logic presume that individuals persist over time. — Banno
Mathematics do not know time. For example the law of the excluded middle states that any sentence must be either wrong or true. It doesn't matter if one or the other or none was shown. It does not know change. To conclude from this that is presupposes "persistence" is not directly correct as there simply is no difference that would allow to say such a thing.Formal systems do indeed presume persistence -- the persistence of symbols, as mathematics presumes a persistence of number. — Xtrix
So far as I am aware, persistence is not a notion used in formal logic. Nor does formal logic presume that individuals persist over time. — Banno
Mathematics do not know time. For example the law of the excluded middle states that any sentence must be either wrong or true. It doesn't matter if one or the other or none was shown. It does not know change. — Heiko
Husserl and Heidegger derive mathematical continuity from the idea of enduring objective presence, on which the vulgar concept of time is based. They deconstruct the idea of objective presence and determine that authentic time can’t be likened to a mathematical continuity. — Joshs
But is there a preference for temporality, or is that a misunderstanding on my part? And if so, why? — Banno
The one way is based in an assumption that what remains the same as time passes (being) provides the fundamental description, and the other way assumes that things not remaining the same as time passes (becoming) provides the fundamental description. These two fundamental descriptions are incompatible ways of describing the proposed "enduring objective presence". — Metaphysician Undercover
Hence we have definitions of "is" (existence, being) which are not dependent on time. — Banno
Mathematics is a human activity. Humans do indeed exist “in” time (or, better, “as” time). When we think in symbols, we’re thinking in a certain moment in time.
Mathematics does indeed presuppose time. — Xtrix
But Heidegger claims that for Aristotle time itself is derived from motion, a continuous change within something enduringly objectively presence. So it would seem for Aristotle the scene of being and becoming is the objectively present frame of time as motion. — Joshs
Mathematics is a human activity. Humans do indeed exist “in” time (or, better, “as” time). When we think in symbols, we’re thinking in a certain moment in time.
Mathematics does indeed presuppose time.
— Xtrix
This is like arguing that mathematics presupposes oxygen. — Srap Tasmaner
The idea is you capture some life i, deer, horse, elephant, ant, ... capture some life, we die life still exist,Closer to the nature of being it seems — Heiko
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.