Re: String and Language
- From: Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:32:13 +0200
Hi
John Jones wrote:
Logic never represents the particular case. Instead it presents
'propositions' which must be linked to the particular case by mappings.
The mappings are called truth and falsity. For example, 'the sun is
shining' presumes a particular case without actually stating it. We are
led to believe, simply because it is a statement, that the statement
refers to a particular case. But because the particular case is absent,
we need to suggest a particular case. Let us say that the particular
case is Tuesday. Tuesday itself is a logical proposition (unlike
indexicals). We then map tuesday to the statement 'the sun is shining'
and where there is a match we have the mapping 'true'. But this can
only ever give the semblance of language and truth. For what is true is
not that the sun is shining but that we have made a match. Logic is not
a clear display of language, as the former requires procedures that
common language never uses.
So does language. What happens if you read in a
book "the sun was shining on tuesday". You don't
know the particular case. So the kernel of the
sentence is found in the proposition, and the
rest is the phantasy of the reader of the
novel.
In any logical language a sentence becomes the source of a range of
senses, and according as the fancy takes us we match, or mis-match
(map) one of these to a particular case. God knows why they never
mention this.
See above. Not a particular case. Maybe a
multitude of cases.
Sentences aren't interpreted except in logic, translation, and
interpretation. These are not language as it is commonly 'used'.
See above. What verb do you prefer instead of
interpretation to the mental effect of reading
a sentence?
I don't know if there is much point in carrying on. There is a lot of
cleverness in logic, but once the basics are grasped - and they are
hardly ever addressed, the symbolic elaborations seem to lose their
status as 'the stuff of logic' and become mere technical elaborations,
with skills required of the technician, not the philosopher.
Why aren't the basics addressed? Where aren't
they addressed? In logic or in philosophy?
Why are symbolic elaborations not part of
logic? Does sci.logic not show that the technical
stuff of Cantor, Gödel, etc.. moves people?
I was a chemist. I always find it acceptable to hear a philosophy
centered on aspects of chemistry (e.g. Putnams XYZ for H2O) - I never
say 'you should bone up on chemistry first'. But this is what logicians
say. But again, like chemistry, logic IS NOT philosophy.
Why makes it philosophy not being logic your
statements more acceptable? Could you
elaborate?
Bye
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: String and Language
- From: John Jones
- Re: String and Language
- References:
- String and Language
- From: John Jones
- Re: String and Language
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: String and Language
- From: John Jones
- Re: String and Language
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: String and Language
- From: John Jones
- String and Language
- Prev by Date: Re: String and Language
- Next by Date: Re: FOL & completeness
- Previous by thread: Re: String and Language
- Next by thread: Re: String and Language
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|