Let's take one of your previous examples (of a philosophical statement that you say is non-propositional): "Consciousness is fundamental to reality"^^. Are you saying that, in principle, that statement is not truth-apt? — Bob Ross

"In principle" there is not any fact of the matter that can make the statement true. At most, it's a supposition expressed (confusedly) in a declarative, or categorical, form (as philosophers are wont to do).

^^Consciousness is fundamental reality.

Are you, likewise, saying it is a non-cognitive statement?

Yes, of course.

"In principle" there is not any fact of the matter that can make the statement true. At most, it's a supposition expressed (confusedly) in a declarative, or categorical, form (as philosophers are wont to do).

I think the difference between our views on truthmakers is that I seem to think that what qualifies a statement as truth-apt (truth-bearing) is that it is not expressing something which is metaphysically, actually, nor logically impossible; whereas, for you, it seems like the qualification is that some fact about reality suggests, to some degree, that it is true. Is that correct?

Apparently.

Who? You raised the issue. Who else? Yes, I was saying because you never added content to logic, maybe that is your point on logic? My use of Logic was always full of content. — Corvus

So what? Logic is about the form, not the content, but I haven't denied that thought processes and arguments, whether logically valid or not, have content. Try to address what I'm actually saying and not what you imagine I'm saying, and the conversation might improve

That is my own point on Philosophical methodology. If you want examples, read up on Philosophy of Language, or any Analytic Philosophy. — Corvus

If you cannot present your own ideas in your own words, and address what I'm actually saying instead of strawman versions, instead of giving me unwanted reading advice and misinterpreting, whether deliberately or not, my words, then responding to you is a waste of time and energy.

.

How can metaphysical statements or standpoints be truth-apt if their truth is undecidable? The only way I could parse that would be to say that they might be true even though we have no imaginable way of determining their truth.

Note, I'm not saying metaphysical statements or standpoints are incoherent. A good example is an argument I had recently with @plaque flag where he was claiming that the very idea of mind-independently existent objects is incoherent. We cannot determine whether objects exist in themselves or not, but we can perfectly coherently think that they might or might not even though there is no imaginable way to determine whether they do or not.

On the other hand, in some sense it seems reasonable to say that if we cannot imagine a way to determine whether ordinary objects are mind-dependent or not, then saying either that they are or are not mind-independent is both unwarranted and perhaps even incoherent, but I'm not sold on that. The biggest problem here seems to be the limitations of dualistic thought and language.

So what? Logic is about the form, not the content, but I haven't denied that thought processes and arguments, whether logically valid or not, have content. Try to address what I'm actually saying and not what you imagine I'm saying, and the conversation might improve — Janus

You have been talking in terms of some old classic logic point of view. There have been huge developments in Logic for many years, and now there are many types of logic. It is not really helping anyone just parroting what logic is about from the outdated point of view.

If you cannot present your own ideas in your own words, and address what I'm actually saying instead of strawman versions, instead of giving me unwanted reading advice and misinterpreting, whether deliberately or not, my words, then responding to you is a waste of time and energy. — Janus

Strawman versions? What was your arguments or points actually apart from keep saying Logic is contentless and useless methods because it cannot describe the world? My point was that we have limited space and time in writing up the most basics in the fields, hence why not go and do some readings before spewing out pointless criticisms, which are totally subjective and unsupported instead of demanding to explain the obvious.

More distortions...you're doubling down on your ignorance, clutching at straws...time wasting.

…..three note-worthy points:

1. There is a world (independent of 'me');
2. There is an 'I' (or 'me') which is in that world; and
3.There is a distinction between my experience of and the world itself.

Firstly, all three of these are transcendent claims assumed as true….. — Bob Ross

Even if I grant all three points are assumed as true, what makes them transcendent claims?

More distortions...you're doubling down on your ignorance, clutching at straws...time wasting. — Janus

My point was that your claim that Logic is contentless, and incapable of describing the world doesn't make sense.  Maybe you have read it somewhere on the internet, and I have too.  But you cannot keep emphasizing on the point, when every device we use today is loaded with some type of logic.

I have already demonstrated how you fill in the contents into the logic you set up, and make use of them in the real world instead of keep shouting logic is contentless and incapable of describing the world.  You obviously haven't read any of them, or maybe you did read them, but still don't understand the points in the demonstrations. You definitely don't know all types of logic out there being used recently, but keep claiming on some opinion you read somewhere on the internet. 

That is not a good philosophical method. Why not have your own opinion on the subject after having read or studied more textbooks and see also the real world applications on the subject.

Whatever the case, resorting to the emotion-fueled comments such as "ignorance" and "waste of time" doesn't make you look or sound any better than any of your counterparts in terms of the integrity and context in the arguments.

If you fill in the contents, doesn’t that imply there isn’t any? That being the case, isn’t that exactly the same as logic being contentless?

Logic…..just that, plain ol’ logic….has been called the science of correct thought. When employed as a countable noun, in which there are assorted forms of logic, all that’s implied is a formal system providing an empirical proof from a corresponding set of antecedent a priori conditions.

Maybe you’re trying to say even, e.g., the formal law A = A contains the content of A and necessary equality, but even so, in order for that logic to be useful as a system of proof, one must still fill in that content for which A alone represents the form of the law.

By the same token, how would it be persuasive that mere “if-then” syllogistic logical form has content exhibited by “if” or “then” all by themselves, when they are merely the necessary conditionals? The systemic proof arises from the “if (this content), “then” (that content), the parentheticals being filled in by the user.

I’ll second the notion that logic….as such, all by itself….is contentless.

My point was there are different types of logic, some contentless, some content given, or filled. They don't work all the same.

Anyhow, my real point was, be it contentless or content filled, logic is a useful method of thinking and reasoning. And whatever subject or methods they are, you make it useful by adopting them for your own purposes. Logic, Science or Metaphysics, they will not do things for you. You must do something with them to arrive at the truth.

My point was there are different types of logic, some contentless, some content given, or filled. They don't work all the same. — Corvus

While there may indeed be different types of logic, I would still ask, which type of logic has its content already given?

While there may indeed be different types of logic, I would still ask, which type of logic has its content already given? — Mww

Before that, could you please clarify what you meant by logic is "contentless"?  Contentless in what sense? What contents are you referring to in contentless logic?

Logical statements and propositions are always about something be it concepts, or things in the real world. What is your ground for claiming that logic is contentless?

….what you meant by logic is "contentless"? — Corvus

Simply put, I mean, logic is a method for examining critical thought in general, in the form of…..for that critical thought which is constructed logically, or, which is the same thing, in accordance with a strict logical form, self-contradiction is impossible, and thereby the truth of the construct is given.

Even without knowing what meant by it, I can still agree that logic is contentless, under the presupposition that logic, as such, is only a methodological form in itself.

That there is logic is one thing; that things are logical is quite something else.

I can still agree that logic is contentless, under the presupposition that logic, as such, is only a methodological form in itself. — Mww

Thanks for your reply.  However, I don't agree with your view. One of the reason is that your view on logic is too narrow. I have read that definition of logic from the old logic books written in the 1800s. I didn't agree with it at all.

There are, as I said earlier, different types of logic.  You are well read in Kant, so you would know, even in Kant's Logic, there are two types of Logic i.e. General Logic, and Transcendental Logic.

I am not a Logic specialist, and my view comes from causal readings on my Logic books, but I know there are around 20+ types of different Logics in use today.  They can't all work under your abnormally narrow definition of Logic.

From my personal view of Logic, the contents are part of the Logic.  Without the contents, Logic is possible to be studied, but wouldn't be useful for the practical uses in the real world.

Logic is possible to be studied, but wouldn't be useful for the practical uses in the real world. — Corvus

No one was disagreeing with that. It is the content in logical propositions by which we know anything at all. Nevertheless, it is by the form the content takes, that certainty is even possible for the human intellect. The content of the conceptions in the subject of any proposition must relate to the conceptions in the predicate of that same proposition, for it to have any knowledge contained in it.

…your view on logic is too narrow. — Corvus

As it must be, I suggest; there is a need for the irreducible ground, by which to judge the rest. The use of logic, on the other hand, the application of the method….the filling in of the content, as you say…..is as wide or narrow as the conceptions represented by however filling the content is, warrants.

Regarding Kantian general and transcendental logic, these are merely differences in the source of the representations contained in our cognitions. The former is with respect to the relations of a priori cognitions themselves to each other, regardless of the source of the representations contained therein, while the latter regards only those relations which have only to do with what makes a priori cognition possible. So while they technically are different types of logic, they still abide by the same rules of logic, which reduces to the congruency of relations of representations even in different types of cognition.

Logic is possible to be studied, but wouldn't be useful for the practical uses in the real world. — Corvus

Exactly right. Logic, the critical method, is useless for knowing, but categorically necessary for making things known.

@Mww has explained the point much better than I did. Patience is not always one of my virtues.

Regarding Kantian general and transcendental logic, these are merely differences in the source of the representations contained in our cognitions. The former is with respect to the relations of a priori cognitions themselves to each other, regardless of the source of the representations contained therein, while the latter regards only those relations which have only to do with what makes a priori cognition possible. So while they technically are different types of logic, they still abide by the same rules of logic, which reduces to the congruency of relations of representations even in different types of cognition. — Mww

That seems different from my understanding of General and Transcendental logic in Kant. My understanding is that the general logic deals with how thoughts are related to the objects.
But transcendental logic deals with how thoughts fail to relate to objects in the correct way, such as in the case of illusion.

Anyhow, it proves that there are many different types of Logic in Philosophy, Science, Computing and A.I. Your claim Logic is contentless, and it is the only definition of Logic doesn't sound right to me. But if that is what you would go with, I won't stop you.

Exactly right. Logic, the critical method, is useless for knowing, but categorically necessary for making things known. — Mww

My thoughts on Logic is that, contents are the precondition of thoughts, and thoughts are the precondition of Logic.  Therefore, without content, Logic is impossible.  Contentless logic is a pseudo logic, or logic in just a shell with no meaning.

Contentless logic is a pseudo logic, or logic in just a shell with no meaning. — Corvus

Yes, that is kind of the point. When you understand logic you understand that any meaning it has is a logical consequence of the inputs to the logic, and the inputs are not logic. It's good to be able to recognize the distinction.

:up:

Yes, that is kind of the point. When you understand logic you understand that any meaning it has is a logical consequence of the inputs to the logic, and the inputs are not logic. It's good to be able to recognize the distinction. — wonderer1

That sounds like a circular statement.

That sounds like a circular statement. — Corvus

Might that be because you equate "logic" with "thought"?

any meaning it has is a logical consequence of the inputs to the logic, and the inputs are not logic. — wonderer1

This is a circular statement. You input any meaning which is a logical consequence as the inputs to the logic?

Might that be because you equate "logic" with "thought"? — wonderer1

Not equate, but logic is a thinking process. It is different.

Keep thinking about it.

You are circling around in the loop of the inputs and logic. I advise you to jump out of it immediately to the world of reason. :)

That seems different from my understanding of General and Transcendental logic in Kant. — Corvus

That’s fine. Yours is further along in the book, whereas mine merely states the initial conditions.

My thoughts on Logic is that, contents is the precondition of thoughts, and thoughts is the precondition of Logic.  Therefore, without content, Logic is impossible.  Contentless logic is pseudo logic, or logic in just a shell with no meaning. — Corvus

Now, I think that’s sorta backwards.
1.) The possibility of thought must be the condition antecedent that which is thought about. Account must be made for the fact that the faculty of understanding generates its own objects merely from the thought of them, re: conceptual spontaneity, thereby immediately eliminating the possibility that content is the precondition of thought.
2.) Under the assumption the human cognitive system as a whole is a logical system, logic is then the precondition of thought. How would it be possible to think logically without logic being the form of the thinking system? Like…..how could you have a square concrete pad, if not for the construction of the very form required to receive the fluid concrete that subsequently solidifies into a square?
3.) Your A = B, B = C, therefore A = C doesn’t work iff logic….plain ol’ logic, all by itself, a critical method in itself….has never been that which has to do directly with objects, but only sets the rules under which objects are thought.

As for meaning, logic in itself, as a function of understanding, has to do with establishment of non-contradictory judgements alone. As with the concrete pad, empirical meaning can never arise without the a priori elimination of contradictions.
—————

…the world of reason…. — Corvus

Out of curiosity, what does that mean to you?

Also, you were going to tell me which type of logic has its content already contained in it.

As for meaning, logic in itself, as a function of understanding, has to do with establishment of non-contradictory judgements alone. As with the concrete pad, empirical meaning can never arise without the a priori elimination of contradictions. — Mww

1. Whether the contents of the thoughts came from the external world, or arose in the mind by thinking, intuiting, imagining, memorising ... etc, they are all the contents of thought.

2. I never said that it is "possible to think logically without logic being the form of the thinking system." Of course logic is the form of a thinking system, but it needs the contents. Do you notice you bringing up "a square concrete pad, if not for the construction of the very form required to receive the fluid concrete that subsequently solidifies into a square" ? in order to get your thought working? Without the content, how could you have demonstrated the logic?

3. I think that was what I have been saying. You cannot separate objects and contents from your thoughts. If you empty your thoughts, then there will be no logic. Thoughts cannot operate without the contents, hence logic will always operate with the contents in the thought.

Out of curiosity, what does that mean to you? — Mww

It means what it says "the world of reason", not "the world of confusion and muddle" :cool:

Also, you were going to tell me which type of logic has its content already contained in it. — Mww

I think I said it already. All logic must have the contents to operate. Without it, it is a pseudo logic or a shell with nothing in it.

Sorry Bob, I missed this somehow.

So, you don’t think the property of ‘being able to sit on it’ is mind-independent? — Bob Ross

No. This case, and other cases of manifest reality are mind dependent. Being able to sit on is a mental construction as are the things we designate as "sittable".

I don't believe this applies to atoms and particles.

No. This case, and other cases of manifest reality are mind dependent. Being able to sit on is a mental construction as are the things we designate as "sittable".

I don't believe this applies to atoms and particles. — Manuel

Do you mean that the property of sittable-ness is a construction of human minds? But we still learn a posteriori whether a thing has this property? Or is it a priori?

Do you mean that the property of sittable-ness is a construction of human minds? — frank

Yes.

But we still learn a posteriori whether a thing has this property? Or is it a priori? — frank

That's a little hard to determinte.

I think there is an element of both. I don't think it is completely a posteriori, for if it were, we wouldn't be able to associate anything as being something we can sit on. This has to connect to some mental model that is innate in us.

Similarly, I don't think it can be entirely a-priori. We need experience with objects to stimulate such ideas. If we never encountered anything we could sit on, say we only experience a spiky world, perhaps the idea of sitting wouldn't arise.