Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

de Silentio wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

de Silentio wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

We can draw further conclusions from predicate logic because predicate logic goes further into detail. (But Aristotelian logic is just an elemantary version of predicate logic). But it is not that we can draw different conclusions from predicate logic, only further conclusions. There is a difference.

What is the difference?

We can draw the same conclusions from predicate logic as we can from classical logic. And, in addition, we can draw further conclusions.

I meant what is the difference between "further conclusions" and "different conclusions". It seems to me that when there is further information in the conclusion, the conclusion is different.

For example, the conclusions: (C1) "The dog is going to bite" and (C2) "The dog with red hair is going to bite" seem like different conclusions to me, even though (C2) merely has further information. ( (C1) would represent Propositional Logic while (C2) would represent Predicate Logic)

No, two people can draw the same conclusion, and then one of them can draw a further conclusion different from the conclusion they both drew before. But this is really trivial stuff, and has nothing whatever to do with the main topic. There are digressions, and then there are digression. This is the latter.

guigus wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

To some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hp

Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.

Opinions?

It is amazing that the text you refer to begins talking about symbolic logic. I started a post in this forum regarding a reasoning of mine that begins with the assertion that "every truth must be true." There were two kinds of reaction to this: one telling me that my statement was a tautology; the other telling me it was false for being an instance of the "modal fallacy." This is the legacy of symbolic logic: taking whatever is true for truth itself. The new philosophy we need reads "truth" as "truthness." Traditional philosophy reads "truth" as "true things." When we read "truth" as if it were in the world, waiting for us to find it, we are locked into natural necessity. When we read "truth" as the truth itself of whatever is true, then we free ourselves by means of a necessity that is rather the need that a true statement, or true idea, or true memory, or whatever "truth" has of a state of affairs out there in the world to make it a truth. For the new philosophy we need, necessity itself is a relation, instead of a property. This is the only way to address the "human condition," since it resides precisely in the true statement side of the correspondence between a statement and a state of affairs.

I think someone should tell you that symbolic logic is merely an extension and elaboration of classical logic. It is not different from classical logic except for that, and it incorporates classical logic. You seem to believe that classical logic and symbolic logic are in conflict. But the truth is that symbolic logic is classical logic put more precisely, and further extended and elaborated on. There is no conflict. And everything that can be said in classical logic can also be said in symbolic logic, only more precisely. I thought you ought to know.

The uses of symbolic logic have added a completely new dimension to old philosophical discussions, and have made them both, easier to understand, and also, easier to deak with. Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

I am probably in the second category, but I am extremly curious about the world around me. Like many people. I think I would like to pimp these intellects and make them work the ground instead of the clouds. People are discontent in ever larger numbers and turn away from the society. Can we not think of ways to keep together the social fabric ?

I will respond on what is philosophy and you decide if Philosophers are lost. two directions of philosophy, 1. philosophy majors that leads to intellectual prostitution. (sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone), 2. every human is a philosopher in a different level of curiosity. =)

I am probably in the second category, but I am extremly curious about the world around me. Like many people. I think I would like to pimp these intellects and make them work the ground instead of the clouds. People are discontent in ever larger numbers and turn away from the society. Can we not think of ways to keep together the social fabric ?

kennethamy wrote:

The uses of symbolic logic have added a completely new dimension to old philosophical discussions, and have made them both, easier to understand, and also, easier to deak with. Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

Have you ever considered that that use could have made things worse? What symbolic logic has in common with classical logic (despite the recent explosion of symbolic logic in almost all directions), is that both take a truth as either an empty statement (what they call a "proposition") or as the referenced state of affairs as if it were itself a statement (again, a "proposition"). This is the fundamental mistake made by logicians of all time, since there is a duality here, between a statement in our heads and a state of affairs in the world, which keeps being ignored even by the most exotic branches of paraconsistent logic.

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

The uses of symbolic logic have added a completely new dimension to old philosophical discussions, and have made them both, easier to understand, and also, easier to deak with. Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

Have you ever considered that that use could have made things worse? What symbolic logic has in common with classical logic (despite the recent explosion of symbolic logic in almost all directions), is that both take a truth as either an empty statement (what they call a "proposition") or as the referenced state of affairs as if it were itself a statement (again, a "proposition"). This is the fundamental mistake made by logicians of all time, since there is a duality here, between a statement in our heads and a state of affairs in the world, which keeps being ignored even by the most exotic branches of paraconsistent logic.

Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...

Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...

Fido wrote:

Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...

Well, "truth" is just a word, of course. What else would it be. But truth is not a word, it is what the word "truth" designates. So: 1. "truth" is just a word, but truth is not a word at all, and so could not be just a word.

What if I said to you that what you are saying isn't true? Or you think it doesn't matter if what you are saying is true or false? Perhaps you will say now precisely the opposite of what you just said, just for fun... Usually when people say to you that "truth" is just a word, they do not mean it about their own words.

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...

Well, "truth" is just a word, of course. What else would it be. But truth is not a word, it is what the word "truth" designates. So: 1. "truth" is just a word, but truth is not a word at all, and so could not be just a word.

What if I said to you that what you are saying isn't true? Or you think it doesn't matter if what you are saying is true or false? Perhaps you will say now precisely the opposite of what you just said, just for fun... Usually when people say to you that "truth" is just a word, they do not mean it about their own words.

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...

Well, "truth" is just a word, of course. What else would it be. But truth is not a word, it is what the word "truth" designates. So: 1. "truth" is just a word, but truth is not a word at all, and so could not be just a word.

What if I said to you that what you are saying isn't true? Or you think it doesn't matter if what you are saying is true or false? Perhaps you will say now precisely the opposite of what you just said, just for fun... Usually when people say to you that "truth" is just a word, they do not mean it about their own words.

I am lucky to be considered not normal enough to serve in Her Majesty's Army