If you start taking a look at Word & Object, Quine is
plenty voluble about modern logics' efforts, and problems.
Which he phrases in nice sorts of ways as sort of allusion
to criticism then though sometimes the waffling.
Strawson though stands out as sort of uncontradicted,
especially when Quine's "relevance" is sort of the
opposite of what's usually meant, for relevance logic.
Yet, then Strawson also himself wrote himself into
the corner of modern logic, though at least he's less
On 23/03/2025 03:46, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Indeed, Strawson isn't less misrepresented then ignored than
Socrates vs Plato/Aristotle, or Leibniz vs Kant/Newton, or the
first Wittgenstein vs Frege/Russell...
On 23/03/2025 03:46, Ross Finlayson wrote:
If you start taking a look at Word & Object, Quine is
plenty voluble about modern logics' efforts, and problems.
Which he phrases in nice sorts of ways as sort of allusion
to criticism then though sometimes the waffling.
Strawson though stands out as sort of uncontradicted,
especially when Quine's "relevance" is sort of the
opposite of what's usually meant, for relevance logic.
Yet, then Strawson also himself wrote himself into
the corner of modern logic, though at least he's less
Says who? Rather one is a logicist and the lying with numbers,
the other is a logician proper: guess who's who.
Just take "Sinn und Bedeutung": how to build a whole edifice
on the basis on the systematic misplacement and misuse of even
the most basic philosophical (in the broad sense) notions.
Which is but one little example out of the whole edifice of
our inculture and incivilization: insanity, alienation, abuse,
and the systematic lying.
Indeed, Strawson isn't less misrepresented then ignored than
Socrates vs Plato/Aristotle, or Leibniz vs Kant/Newton, or the
first Wittgenstein vs Frege/Russell...
Rather, read Strawson's "Introduction to Logical Theory" if you
want to know what (modern) Logic actually is: or, would/could/
should/used to be. Or, is.
On 03/23/2025 06:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 23/03/2025 03:46, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Sort of like W.H.F. Barnes or R.G. Collingwood, yet really for
both Kant and Hegel, who both had both a strong analytical
and thoroughly idealistic course, has that Quine's wrestling
with concepts of logical paradox, never sees him quite win,
which can only result from resolving them.
Thanks for your reply, and please explain how there can be
a true theory overall at all, vis-a-vis some ideal Comenius
language and our mere human inter-subjective Coleridge language,
that there is one at all results from plain reason.
On 23/03/2025 16:19, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/23/2025 06:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 23/03/2025 03:46, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Sort of like W.H.F. Barnes or R.G. Collingwood, yet really for
both Kant and Hegel, who both had both a strong analytical
and thoroughly idealistic course, has that Quine's wrestling
with concepts of logical paradox, never sees him quite win,
which can only result from resolving them.
I do have given you a/the resolution, then you keep calling
*me* an/the idealist. Indeed, if all you have is a/that
hammer, ideally then materially, *and* not giving it up.
Thanks for your reply, and please explain how there can be
a true theory overall at all, vis-a-vis some ideal Comenius
language and our mere human inter-subjective Coleridge language,
that there is one at all results from plain reason.
You are welcome. The short answer there is: your question
is as ill-founded as your "philosophy" (your dictionary and
index); indeed, who said Logic is about "ultimate truth(s?)"?
Related: what is Philosophy?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 146:40:02 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,509 |