On Logic...

taken from: https://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/t17-what-is-the-will-to-power

MS wrote:Zoot has faith in logic:

haha, yes, but a kind of fideistic faith, which is to say that there is no getting beyond the limits that kant discovered, for the acquisition of knowledge. we cannot know why logic is, but only that it must be in order for us to even ask this question about logic... because a question can make no sense without it. logic presupposes itself even when it has itself come into question.

in simpler words, if one were to believe that 'logic explains nothing', it would be only after logic was put to use in forming the argument against it, which then purports to reject it.

i mean propositional logic, of course. and this accounts for any philosophical narrative (including yours above) possible.

forget about the phrase "logical soundness and validity' for a moment and just think of logic as an 'appearance of meaning' in general. now it may be that there are realities in the world that we cannot get at (kant's noumena)... even nietzsche suggested this possibility when he said something along the lines of: 'there may be a metaphysical world, but what would remain of it if the human head were cut off."

this is where we find our limits. but the limits are not rigid in philosophy, and this is proved in the kinds of speculation philosophy engenders. philosophers try to talk about this world that they cannot get at, and while doing so, inadvertantly dismiss the very means with which they are able to believe they have discovered some truth about it. those means are logic.

now suppose one were to say that logic is psychologistic, meaning, it exists because of the way our brains and nervous systems work. the supposition being that if we weren't designed like we are, logic might not exist. but this poses a problem. if we are designed by the world, then our design reflects the same fundamental structures the world has... and therefore logic must already be possible.

there again we can't 'cut of the head' and take a look at the world afterward. hence, the fideism.

my faith in logic is founded on these two principles; the impossibility to refute it without employing it, and the impossibility of the human being something fundamentally different than the world.

ZA wrote:my faith in logic is founded on these two principles; the impossibility to refute it without employing it, and the impossibility of the human being something fundamentally different than the world.

The latter is kind of obsolete after the former though, right? Still, let's explore it. You say:

now suppose one were to say that logic is psychologistic, meaning, it exists because of the way our brains and nervous systems work. the supposition being that if we weren't designed like we are, logic might not exist. but this poses a problem. if we are designed by the world, then our design reflects the same fundamental structures the world has... and therefore logic must already be possible.

Sure, possible. But what if this possibility is one option in a number of options between which there is absolute freedom, or absolute randomness, of choice? I think this is already unthinkable for us, as it's already illogical; but, considering our thinkable world instead, can't we regard that as a world for which the only thinkable--for us--choice is being made all the time (except perhaps within nanoseconds after the Big Bang)? We have conceptions of freedom and randomness, don't we? We have a conception of different possibilities... Even if we explain all this away as superstition, or in reference to chaos theory or something--that is, even if we grant that this is the only possible course of things whereas all other courses, imagined or not, are unreal--, that [other] way of thinking may be at least as fundamental to us as logical thinking! After all, logic is an abstraction; before we can determine that A equals A, we must try to think of an A--say, a tiger--who is not an A--but, say, a flamingo. To this end we must already have imagined tigers and flamingos before, or rather, we must have evolved the potential to do so.

::

The above is what I wrote yesterday, while my high was increasingly deteriorating into stonedness. Still, I think I was on to something: the intentionality of consciousness. Did you look into emergence since I mentioned that to you a few weeks ago, by the way?

What is the chance on earth of that this image exists?
Thank you for the laugh.

witchdoctor wrote:What is the chance on earth of that this image exists?

it's hard to say man. probability theory is some pretty heavy shit. i can tell you this, though. in an infinite space/time continuum it would be 100% certain that it would exist, because it isn't an illogical thing.

in a closed, finite inflationary universe (big-bang style), you'd have to go back to the beginning, sit right in the middle of searing hot explosion, and do all kinds of calculations. you'd have to locate and measure every particle that existed, and then factor in quantum fluctuations and indeterminacy, and then draw up a stochastic plan for all the future states and paths of all these particles. only then would you be able to know the probability of the image of the tiger-flamingo ever existing.

good luck, and godspeed.

p.s. bring some sun screen with you.

i have decided to become a trivialist, andy, after i experienced a moment of enlightenment upon observing the wisdom of the great sage, browser32 from ILP.

i endorse the first form of trivialism, called minimal trivialism. we minimal trivialists believe that in some world, all propositions have a designated value.

what is my secret weapon? the principle of explosion. because all propositions have a designated value, it follows that any contradiction and its negation must be true, somewhere. from that i can proceed to prove that any conclusion is true.

so, the proposition 'all trees are made of wood' and 'not all trees are made of wood' are both true. all trees are made of wood here, on earth, but some trees are not made of wood elsewhere in the universe, since, if it is logically possible that not all trees are made of wood, and, there must be a world in which there are some trees that aren't made of wood, it follows that both propositions are true.

now i can prove anything. the statement 'all trees are made of wood, or andy is a sumo wrestler,' must be true because it follows logically from the premises. likewise, the statement 'not all trees are made of wood, or andy is a sumo wrestler' must also be true, for the same reason.

how you like me now, andy? i'm a minimal trivialist.

bring it.

Brilliant!!!
Live your life accordingly.
I think you were always a trivialist and did not know it.
Now you have a name for not believing and dreaming.

See...forums are good for something.
Trivializing...trivial pursuits...trivialities.
Congratulation, you finally found your way, by not finding it.

everything you say is true, especially 'you finally found your way, by not finding it.'

it is true that someone can find their way by finding their way, but it is also possible in some other world that someone can find their way by not finding their way.

therefore, the statement 'what satyr said is true, or someone can find their way by finding their way,' proves that what satyr said was true.

the statement 'what satyr said is true, or someone can find their way by not finding their way,' also proves that what satyr said was true.

you make an excellent trivialist, dude.

* high five *

Everything and anything is possible when you use language creatively.
Everything is a matter of trivial perspective.
Trees can be not trees. Dogs can be trees or not trees can be dogs.
Who knows? It's all so trivial.

I think I'm coming your way.

*high five* back at ya, brother trivialist.

so, the proposition 'all trees are made of wood' and 'not all trees are made of wood' are both true. all trees are made of wood here, on earth, but some trees are not made of wood elsewhere in the universe, since, if it is logically possible that not all trees are made of wood, and, there must be a world in which there are some trees that aren't made of wood, it follows that both propositions are true.

Well, if you're using language properly, they cannot be both true. They are mutually exclusive propositions.

now i can prove anything. the statement 'all trees are made of wood, or andy is a sumo wrestler,' must be true because it follows logically from the premises. likewise, the statement 'not all trees are made of wood, or andy is a sumo wrestler' must also be true, for the same reason.

You can use language any way you want but you cannot prove anything you want.

how you like me now, andy?

Do you want my honest opinion?
I think that your behavior is childish.

What's interesting about it is that it is antisocial but in a very subtle way.

"Man's maturity: to have regained the seriousness that he had as a child at play." - N

Zoot, calling something that is not made out of wood a tree would be a figurative use of that word.
Trees are made of wood by definition.

believe it or not, a philosopher would even try to challenge THAT. he'd be like "if we agree that the physical composition of the tree involves a finite collection of elements which are in arrangement X at time Y, and at time Y are they in state A, which we call 'tree', but are also constantly moving and reconfiguring, then we couldn't call the 'tree' arrangement X at time Z, because it wouldn't be in state A anymore."

the only chance you'd have to refute this would be to hit him with a three piece james/pierce/wittgenstein combo. tell him it duddint fucking matter as long as you are in agreement with other shared language speakers regarding the general identification and use of the 'tree' and the 'wood' it is made of.

he'd probably then fold his hands behind his back, start pacing back in forth in front of you as if in deep thought, pause for dramatic effect, raise his hand with an extended finger and shout "but that's not the truth. the wood and the tree are only temporal corporeal manifestations of a fundamental substance of which all things consist!"

the bad news is, he'd be right....

assignment: provide at least two post-structural criticisms of the correspondence theory of truth and explain why confirmation holism might be compatible with the deconstructionist's position.