Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning; but it, like ‘science’, ‘Kleenex’ etc.,
has become a word with a common usage. In our common mode of speaking ‘logic’ means Aristotelian Formal Logic.
Aristotle said “A definition is a phrase signifying a thing’s essence.†Essence is the collection of characteristics that makes a thing a kind of thing. Such a definition expresses what is called a concept.
Aristotle equates predication (all men are mortal, I am a man) with containment. Predication is containment. To make a predication is to create a ‘container’ that contains the essence of a thing being predicated.
This containment leads us to the obvious logic (formal principles of a branch of knowledge) of containers. If container A is in container C and container B is in A then B is in C. This container schema is where all of these Latin terms, such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, come from. This is the source of all of the principles for syllogisms, I think. In other words just imagine containers and various juxtapositions of these will lead one to the principles of Aristotelian Logic. I suspect many Greeks scratched their heads and wondered “why didn’t I think of that?â€
“Aristotle’s founding metaphor was Ideas are Essences. To conceptualize a thing is to categorize it, which is to state its essence, the defining attributes that make it the kind of thing it is. For Aristotle, then, the essences of things in the world, since they are what constitute ideas, can actually be in the mind. And for the essence to be in the mind, it cannot be in the substance or matter of the thing; rather it must be its form: Essences are Forms. So, if our ideas are the form of things, and we reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.â€
“We reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.†This, I guess, was the birth of the pure reason of Descartes, of soul in Christianity, of humans placing themselves just below God and far above animals, and of what is the common attitude of most humans.
My claim is that the ideas generally associated with Idealism (pure reason having access to truth, mind/body dichotomy, and certainty) are unhealthy for us and that such ideas should be discouraged. This bit on Aristotle indicates his thoughts about such things and that he is near the source of such ideas.
Am I wrong? Is my conclusion incorrect? If it is correct is it important? If it is important should we try to correct the common attitude of people? If we do not correct the common attitude of people does it matter? Is anyone curious and does anyone care?
These questions are primarily rhetorical because almost everyone, I guess, would have to think and study about such matters for a long time before they would commit a judgment.
Quotes and many of the ideas from “Philosophy in the Flesh†Lakoff and Johnson
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way...you become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions. Aristotle
This quote from Aristotle sounds very Idealistic to me.
This quote from Aristotle sounds very Idealistic to me.
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
I think that Idealism has its place. It helps to create an ideal model so as to understand a particular concept or problem.
For instance, a mathematical equation is an ideal solution. However, all such equations will contain variables that can alter the outcome quite radically. Often, in pioneering research, not all the variables are known. The variables in an equation indicate what is known. By comparing the results with a real event, we can determine whether more research is required or not. Military engineering uses ideal models in this way.
For instance, a mathematical equation is an ideal solution. However, all such equations will contain variables that can alter the outcome quite radically. Often, in pioneering research, not all the variables are known. The variables in an equation indicate what is known. By comparing the results with a real event, we can determine whether more research is required or not. Military engineering uses ideal models in this way.
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
coberst wrote: Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning; but it, like ‘science’, ‘Kleenex’ etc.,
has become a word with a common usage. In our common mode of speaking ‘logic’ means Aristotelian Formal Logic.
Aristotle said “A definition is a phrase signifying a thing’s essence.†Essence is the collection of characteristics that makes a thing a kind of thing. Such a definition expresses what is called a concept.
Aristotle equates predication (all men are mortal, I am a man) with containment. Predication is containment. To make a predication is to create a ‘container’ that contains the essence of a thing being predicated.
This containment leads us to the obvious logic (formal principles of a branch of knowledge) of containers. If container A is in container C and container B is in A then B is in C. This container schema is where all of these Latin terms, such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, come from. This is the source of all of the principles for syllogisms, I think. In other words just imagine containers and various juxtapositions of these will lead one to the principles of Aristotelian Logic. I suspect many Greeks scratched their heads and wondered “why didn’t I think of that?â€
“Aristotle’s founding metaphor was Ideas are Essences. To conceptualize a thing is to categorize it, which is to state its essence, the defining attributes that make it the kind of thing it is. For Aristotle, then, the essences of things in the world, since they are what constitute ideas, can actually be in the mind. And for the essence to be in the mind, it cannot be in the substance or matter of the thing; rather it must be its form: Essences are Forms. So, if our ideas are the form of things, and we reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.â€
“We reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.†This, I guess, was the birth of the pure reason of Descartes, of soul in Christianity, of humans placing themselves just below God and far above animals, and of what is the common attitude of most humans.
My claim is that the ideas generally associated with Idealism (pure reason having access to truth, mind/body dichotomy, and certainty) are unhealthy for us and that such ideas should be discouraged. This bit on Aristotle indicates his thoughts about such things and that he is near the source of such ideas.
Am I wrong? Is my conclusion incorrect? If it is correct is it important? If it is important should we try to correct the common attitude of people? If we do not correct the common attitude of people does it matter? Is anyone curious and does anyone care?
These questions are primarily rhetorical because almost everyone, I guess, would have to think and study about such matters for a long time before they would commit a judgment.
Quotes and many of the ideas from “Philosophy in the Flesh†Lakoff and Johnson
What? I think you overthink. Have fun on the way, you only come this way once.
Have you ever took a wrong turn and actually enjoyed it? I didnt until I met someone who really enjoyed going the wrong way sometimes and like Frost it makes all the difference. To take the road less traveled.
‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning; but it, like ‘science’, ‘Kleenex’ etc.,
has become a word with a common usage. In our common mode of speaking ‘logic’ means Aristotelian Formal Logic.
Aristotle said “A definition is a phrase signifying a thing’s essence.†Essence is the collection of characteristics that makes a thing a kind of thing. Such a definition expresses what is called a concept.
Aristotle equates predication (all men are mortal, I am a man) with containment. Predication is containment. To make a predication is to create a ‘container’ that contains the essence of a thing being predicated.
This containment leads us to the obvious logic (formal principles of a branch of knowledge) of containers. If container A is in container C and container B is in A then B is in C. This container schema is where all of these Latin terms, such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, come from. This is the source of all of the principles for syllogisms, I think. In other words just imagine containers and various juxtapositions of these will lead one to the principles of Aristotelian Logic. I suspect many Greeks scratched their heads and wondered “why didn’t I think of that?â€
“Aristotle’s founding metaphor was Ideas are Essences. To conceptualize a thing is to categorize it, which is to state its essence, the defining attributes that make it the kind of thing it is. For Aristotle, then, the essences of things in the world, since they are what constitute ideas, can actually be in the mind. And for the essence to be in the mind, it cannot be in the substance or matter of the thing; rather it must be its form: Essences are Forms. So, if our ideas are the form of things, and we reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.â€
“We reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.†This, I guess, was the birth of the pure reason of Descartes, of soul in Christianity, of humans placing themselves just below God and far above animals, and of what is the common attitude of most humans.
My claim is that the ideas generally associated with Idealism (pure reason having access to truth, mind/body dichotomy, and certainty) are unhealthy for us and that such ideas should be discouraged. This bit on Aristotle indicates his thoughts about such things and that he is near the source of such ideas.
Am I wrong? Is my conclusion incorrect? If it is correct is it important? If it is important should we try to correct the common attitude of people? If we do not correct the common attitude of people does it matter? Is anyone curious and does anyone care?
These questions are primarily rhetorical because almost everyone, I guess, would have to think and study about such matters for a long time before they would commit a judgment.
Quotes and many of the ideas from “Philosophy in the Flesh†Lakoff and Johnson
What? I think you overthink. Have fun on the way, you only come this way once.
Have you ever took a wrong turn and actually enjoyed it? I didnt until I met someone who really enjoyed going the wrong way sometimes and like Frost it makes all the difference. To take the road less traveled.
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
Many years ago while rummaging in a used book store I decided to buy “Human Evolution Coloring Bookâ€, I wanted to learn more about evolution. I learned all about how the hand evolved from the finâ€or was it the gillsâ€of fish. I looked in vain for a description of how my reasoning ability evolved from the fish.
“Philosophy in The Flesh†by George Lakoff, linguist, and Mark Johnson, philosopher, that I discovered at my local community college library several months ago finally helped me understand this, which since Darwin must be an obvious connection.
Darwin’s theory declares that human capacity grows out of animal capacity but until I discovered this book PTF no one had given me any idea how this is possible. I studied a little philosophy but it never made much sense to me how pure reason with a dichotomy of mind and body could be inherited from tadpoles.
In the last three decades linguists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and others utilizing the scientific method of empirical study have organized a new cognitive theory that is described in this book. I shall call this Metaphor Theory even though no one in this book gives the theory a name. These ‘cognitive scientists’ from many differing domains of knowledge speak of themselves as experimentalists. And the theory goes unnamed. I call the theory metaphor theory and I think that this theory will one day become the first paradigm of a new cognitive science.
We normally think of metaphors as merely linguistic means to associate an unknown with a known. ‘Understand is grasp’ is one common metaphor ‘more is up’ is another. The woods are full of such common metaphors and these metaphors are much more than meet the uninitiated eye.
Metaphor theory claims that almost all cognitive action takes place unconsciously. Metaphors, as we commonly know them, are conscious phenomena but metaphors are more importantly unconscious happenings in tadpoles and in humans. All creatures with neural capacity categorize, conceptualize, and infer; the principal characteristics of reasoning. Here in metaphors we see how human reason is connected to tadpole existence.
A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters.
Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.
Throughout our life we constantly make judgments about such abstract matters as difference, importance, difficulty, and morality, and we have subjective experiences such as affection, desire, love, intimacy and achievement. Cognitive science claims that the manner in which we conceptualize and reason about these matters are determined, to one extinct or another, by sensorimotor domains of experience. CS claims that, in many cases, early experiences of normal mundane manipulations of objects become the prototypes from which these later concrete and abstract judgments are made.
“When we conceptualize understanding an idea (subjective experience) in terms of grasping an object (sensorimotor experience) and failing to understand an idea as having it go right by us or over our heads†we are using a sensorimotor experience as the metaphor for the subjective experience. The metaphor ‘understand is grasp’ results from our conflating a sensorimotor happening with a later subjective experience.
Metaphor is a standard means we have of understanding an unknown by association with a known. When we analyze the metaphor ‘bad is stinky’ we will find: we are making a subjective judgment wherein the olfactory sensation becomes the source of the judgment. ‘This movie stinks’ is a subjective judgment and it is made in this manner because a sensorimotor experience is the structure for making this judgment.
Why is the premise “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points†self-evident. It is because this is one of the first things an infant learns and it is verified and reinforced constantly throughout life by our sensorimotor experiences. The metaphor ‘more is up’ is not so pervasive in our experience but its rationale is similar.
If we recognize metaphor as a means to associate something new with something old, something known with something unknown, we can begin to understand what CS is proposing in this revolutionary theory. CS is presenting a theory based upon empirical evidence gathered by the combined effort of linguists, philosophers, and neural physicists that metaphor is a very necessary element of our ability to reason as we do.
We normally think of metaphor as a tool of language whereby one can enlighten another by making an association of an unknown with a known. CS is making a much more radical use of metaphor.
CS is claiming that the neural structure of sensorimotor experience is mapped onto the mental space for another experience that is not sensorimotor but subjective and that this neural mapping, which is unconscious and automatic, serves as part of the “DNA†of the subjective experience. The sensorimotor experience serves the role of an axiom for the subjective experience.
“Philosophy in The Flesh†by George Lakoff, linguist, and Mark Johnson, philosopher, that I discovered at my local community college library several months ago finally helped me understand this, which since Darwin must be an obvious connection.
Darwin’s theory declares that human capacity grows out of animal capacity but until I discovered this book PTF no one had given me any idea how this is possible. I studied a little philosophy but it never made much sense to me how pure reason with a dichotomy of mind and body could be inherited from tadpoles.
In the last three decades linguists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and others utilizing the scientific method of empirical study have organized a new cognitive theory that is described in this book. I shall call this Metaphor Theory even though no one in this book gives the theory a name. These ‘cognitive scientists’ from many differing domains of knowledge speak of themselves as experimentalists. And the theory goes unnamed. I call the theory metaphor theory and I think that this theory will one day become the first paradigm of a new cognitive science.
We normally think of metaphors as merely linguistic means to associate an unknown with a known. ‘Understand is grasp’ is one common metaphor ‘more is up’ is another. The woods are full of such common metaphors and these metaphors are much more than meet the uninitiated eye.
Metaphor theory claims that almost all cognitive action takes place unconsciously. Metaphors, as we commonly know them, are conscious phenomena but metaphors are more importantly unconscious happenings in tadpoles and in humans. All creatures with neural capacity categorize, conceptualize, and infer; the principal characteristics of reasoning. Here in metaphors we see how human reason is connected to tadpole existence.
A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters.
Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.
Throughout our life we constantly make judgments about such abstract matters as difference, importance, difficulty, and morality, and we have subjective experiences such as affection, desire, love, intimacy and achievement. Cognitive science claims that the manner in which we conceptualize and reason about these matters are determined, to one extinct or another, by sensorimotor domains of experience. CS claims that, in many cases, early experiences of normal mundane manipulations of objects become the prototypes from which these later concrete and abstract judgments are made.
“When we conceptualize understanding an idea (subjective experience) in terms of grasping an object (sensorimotor experience) and failing to understand an idea as having it go right by us or over our heads†we are using a sensorimotor experience as the metaphor for the subjective experience. The metaphor ‘understand is grasp’ results from our conflating a sensorimotor happening with a later subjective experience.
Metaphor is a standard means we have of understanding an unknown by association with a known. When we analyze the metaphor ‘bad is stinky’ we will find: we are making a subjective judgment wherein the olfactory sensation becomes the source of the judgment. ‘This movie stinks’ is a subjective judgment and it is made in this manner because a sensorimotor experience is the structure for making this judgment.
Why is the premise “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points†self-evident. It is because this is one of the first things an infant learns and it is verified and reinforced constantly throughout life by our sensorimotor experiences. The metaphor ‘more is up’ is not so pervasive in our experience but its rationale is similar.
If we recognize metaphor as a means to associate something new with something old, something known with something unknown, we can begin to understand what CS is proposing in this revolutionary theory. CS is presenting a theory based upon empirical evidence gathered by the combined effort of linguists, philosophers, and neural physicists that metaphor is a very necessary element of our ability to reason as we do.
We normally think of metaphor as a tool of language whereby one can enlighten another by making an association of an unknown with a known. CS is making a much more radical use of metaphor.
CS is claiming that the neural structure of sensorimotor experience is mapped onto the mental space for another experience that is not sensorimotor but subjective and that this neural mapping, which is unconscious and automatic, serves as part of the “DNA†of the subjective experience. The sensorimotor experience serves the role of an axiom for the subjective experience.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
Reminds me of the Axiom of Reducibilty by Bertrand Russell, that higher orders can be reduced to a first order one.
Coberst, I think you need to define whether you are discussing the concept of Idealism as a whole, or only in the Philosophical v Linguistic models. The concept of language itself is idealistic, since verbal portrayals of objects and actions and thoughts are Idealistic within in the human mind.
Coberst, I think you need to define whether you are discussing the concept of Idealism as a whole, or only in the Philosophical v Linguistic models. The concept of language itself is idealistic, since verbal portrayals of objects and actions and thoughts are Idealistic within in the human mind.
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
Girl
I am using various examples for the purpose of showing what cognitive science as expressed the “Philosophy in the Flesh†is about. I hope to say enough to excite the curiosity of the reader because I think this is serious stuff worthy of serious consideration.
I am using various examples for the purpose of showing what cognitive science as expressed the “Philosophy in the Flesh†is about. I hope to say enough to excite the curiosity of the reader because I think this is serious stuff worthy of serious consideration.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
I am quite serious in my replies, Coberst.
Why don't you present other examples besides "Philosophy in the Flesh" because there are definitely various schools of thought on this topic. My reference to the Philosophical v Linguistic models are currently debated on the academic level, very much so within the last three decades.
Why don't you present other examples besides "Philosophy in the Flesh" because there are definitely various schools of thought on this topic. My reference to the Philosophical v Linguistic models are currently debated on the academic level, very much so within the last three decades.
Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From
chonsigirl wrote: I am quite serious in my replies, Coberst.
Why don't you present other examples besides "Philosophy in the Flesh" because there are definitely various schools of thought on this topic. My reference to the Philosophical v Linguistic models are currently debated on the academic level, very much so within the last three decades.
Formal logic is not my interest. My interest is cognitive science. Perhaps I am not understanding you. Logic is just my attempt to provide an example of how one might understand the nature of what I call metaphor theory. I guess I do not understand what you mean by "Philosophical v Linguistic models". This book is my introduction to cognitive science.
Why don't you present other examples besides "Philosophy in the Flesh" because there are definitely various schools of thought on this topic. My reference to the Philosophical v Linguistic models are currently debated on the academic level, very much so within the last three decades.
Formal logic is not my interest. My interest is cognitive science. Perhaps I am not understanding you. Logic is just my attempt to provide an example of how one might understand the nature of what I call metaphor theory. I guess I do not understand what you mean by "Philosophical v Linguistic models". This book is my introduction to cognitive science.