Logic: The Structure of Reason
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 เม.ย. 2022
- As a tool for characterizing rational thought, logic cuts across many philosophical disciplines and lies at the core of mathematics and computer science. Drawing on Aristotle’s Organon, Russell’s Principia Mathematica, and other central works, this program tracks the evolution of logic, beginning with the basic syllogism. A sampling of subsequent topics includes propositional and predicate logic, Bayesian theory, Boolean logic, Frege’s use of variables and quantifiers, Gödel’s work with meta-mathematics, the Vienna Circle’s logical positivism, and the Turing machine. Commentary by Hilary Putnam, of Harvard University; NYU’s Kit Fine; and Colin McGinn, of Rutgers University, is featured.
#Philosophy
I love the dungeon synth gangsta music that switches on after some grand citations read on top of philosopher's portrait zooming in and rotating :)
Is dungeon synth gangsta a genre? Any recommendations?
Timestamp? Thanks
Sounds like you’re fascinated by nonsense because you have a very ignorant inclination
Thanks a Lot my Dear. Take care yourself.
Aristotle's "simple system" is the basis of computer science, today. The "true/false" rule. Yes/no, off/on, is binary code (reasoning).
Thanks. Never thought that philosophy has such mathematical abstract equations and plain analysis of simple statements. Thanks again.
All the pioneers of analytic philosophy were logician or mathematician
What's up with the distinctions philosophy pioneered scientific method and mathematical logic.
If you're ignorant to both. You can't advance your philosophizing.
Very good thanks
Francis Bacon was not the first philosopher of modern science. It is widely recognized it was the Iraqi polymath Ibn Al-Haytham as the first scientist and physicist. He developed optics and provided the first accurate description of human vision refuting Aristotle. He predicted the camera and in fact camera is an Arabic word meaning dark room or space which what’s inside the eye. Look him up if you doubt.
صدگ چذب جاي تتعارك ويه عالم علمود تثبت نقطها مالها فايدة 😂😂
@@Joker-zf7qeهلو خويا شلونك😅
This is an extremely well timed lecture as I had just finished watching Errol Morris’s ‘Fog of War’ where McNamara talks about how he used the lessons he learnt from his classes on Logic at Harvard in the war but still lost a lot of battles in Vietnam because of ‘pervasive uncertainty’ . Personally I think the post-Aristotelian dive that logic undertook into language and to some extent semantics has taken the tradition too far adrift from applications to philosophical problems .
Aristotle lived long before the separation of philosophy into natural philosophy and speculative philosophy. In his day and age, there was no "physics" except for his work, no "political theory" except for the work of his master Plato and his own work, no "sociology" or "anthropology" aside from informal observations made by sophists and comedians. Medicine was still just a collection of suggested cures and remedies for ailments passed on from master to student, with no empirical basis. Astronomy had only the faintest form of basis in empirical evidence. Mathematics was still mostly regarded as strange number tricks with no known explanation.
In contrast, by the late 19th century, which was when George Boole came up with Boolean logic and Gottlob Frege came up with his Begriffschrift, philosophy had taken a definite form, consisting of logic, epistemology, metaphysics, psychology (empirical psychology was starting to separate from philosophy right around this time period), ethics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of art. Philosophy of language popping up was just one natural part of the tendency of philosophers to steer as far away as possible from metaphysical and theological discussions by putting up barriers to the formation of arguments that could be used to settle ultimate truths.
The linguistic turn in analytic philosophy is not all that different from the increasingly social concerns of 20th continental philosophers, in regards to their refusal to come up with definite answers on the nature of reality by bringing up communication barriers and the impossibility of going beyond what a text may state.
I am not sure either type of formal logic is really that helpful when it comes to everyday life. I do think that mathematical logic is a great tool for sharpening one’s reasoning. Aristotelian logic by contrast feels rather limited and clunky. It’s like a riding with a wheel that isn’t entirely smooth versus one that has had the rough edges worked out.
@@arlieferguson7442 To me, Aristotelian logic is the smoothest drive I could possibly ever have, it's when things get complicated is when I feel like things are so bumpy with holes all around.
i love this channel
Thank you for sharing!!
Fantastic video, cheers.
Cheers friend. How many cheers does it take to draw a conclusion? Lol
as a philosophy major currently studying logic... Etc.
Lovely share! Thanks
There are three stages in the development of fuzzy logic: (Stage-1) Lukasiewicz-Tarski logic of 1920s for mathematicians, (Stage-2) Lotfi A. Zadeh fuzzy logic for engineers, and (Stage-3) Hugh Ching extension of concept of range of value of Zadeh to that of range of tolerance of Zadeh and Ching. Zadeh jumped directly to fuzzy logic from science, whose essence is precision. Ching took the long way and filled in the gap in knowledge progress from science to social science to life science to robotics to self-creation, and finally guided by Zadeh to fuzzy logic. Science is obsessed with precision, and social and life sciences are clearly fuzzy. The overall effect of fuzzy logic is to reveal the true nature of reality. Fuzzy logic deals with sacrificing precision and relaxing rigor to change the range of tolerance to cover the range of possibilities in an uncertain future to determine the range of solutions or survival. Survival depends on the range of possibilities of creations staying within the range of tolerance for permanent survival in an uncertain future. The best example is DNA. In summary, the conjunction of the range of tolerance T and the range of possibilities P is the range of survival S or S is the conjunction of T and P or S=T ^ P.
Wonderful video, however I wonder why Wittgenstein wasn’t mentioned.
I wondered the same especially because Wittgenstein is one of my favorite philosophers. After pondering it, I think that one possible explanation for Wittgenstein not being in the documentary is that unlike the other figures - Aristotle, Frege, Russell, etc. - Wittgenstein, it can be argued, did not create a **new** formal system or expand/grow a novel method for performing logic. W's work was within the already existing logical framework; he more or less elucidated or attempted to explain the theoretical underpinnings of that framework, critiquing it, positing limitations of how logic can be applied, etc. But I think all of the other figures "revolutionized", you could say, logic in some way, by which I mean came up with never before seen or used logical methods.
The Tractatus was not rescued by his Investigations. Wittgenstein is on of a long line of close system philosophers. In his case he is fixated by logic seemingly unaware that acceptance of contradiction as valid breaks out of the close system of logic to create reason. Unless contradiction is accepted as valid, logic is impossible to use and reason nonexistent.
Ever noticed that the classic syllogism starts with an inductive statement?
Statements aren't inductive, arguments are.
@@Philosophy_Overdose OK. The first premise is the conclusion of an inductive argument.
@@darrellee8194 Well, not necessarily. It could just as easily be the conclusion of a deductive argument. Consider the following example:
(1) All men are living beings.
(2) All living beings are mortal.
(C) All men are mortal.
@@Philosophy_Overdose There’s no way you get to ‘All’ of anything except by induction. It could be a perfect induction if you can examine every it item in the set. But it’s still an induction. Also, isn’t the notion of living being and mortal nearly circular?
@@darrellee8194 To be fair though, inductive reasoning was definitely involved in our coming to know that "all men are mortal", whether it be based directly or indirectly on induction. Perhaps that's what you were getting at.
I am very grateful to share a last name with Hilary. Go Putnams!
thank you
This is gold!!!
Yesss indeed
Hey Philosophy Overdose, thanks for the documentary and for clearing up the my confusion with the example syllogism! Deleted my original comment to spare myself permanent embarrassment on the internet.
No problem. It's all too easy to make such mistakes. I remember watching a famous logician repeatedly make small but obvious errors in a lecture. It happens to the best of us.
@@Philosophy_Overdose Is there a video in relation to what you're describing? Can you name the logician, or at least, what kind of error was he committing?
I have a question: has anyone written about the input or implications of bias (cultural, religious, or political) on philosophy including this topic of logic.
In the few philosophers I've studied I've encountered bias interference in the arguments proposed thus interfering in the logic.
I've actually seen it in mathematical projections regarding financial markets. Argued with the writer (industry specialist) and proved the math wrong. I was not well liked.
Thanks
Yes, Sir Bacon, but how does one know something is a fact ? It seems straight-forward, and so the question absurd. But let us not forget that we consider Descartes to be the 'Father of Modern Philosophy' primarily because he believed that nothing could be taken for granted -- or as being so obvious that it did not require some kind of proof. He only came to accept his own existence as a fact after finding, by means of a rational analysis, that he could not logically refute it. Of course, we might think to ask ourselves, what 'facts' did his 'rational analysis' take for granted ?
24:18 This is a _very_ interesting way of putting the liar paradox. I've never heard that before.
You can answer that by saying that that there must be more than one sentence on that piece of paper, ... Then you can perhaps introduce a variable _X_ and say that all the sentences in the set _X_ of sentences on this page are false ...
Paradox only exists in language, never in reality. Languages are descriptive of actual experience. A statement such as "This sentence is false." steps outside language's ability to adequately represent reality. Because it includes a self-reference it cannot be parsed into reality and is therefore externally meaningless.
@@havenbastion Are you suggesting that self-referentiality implies meaninglessness? I would want to say that a sentence like the following is obviously true: “This sentence has five words”. But if we do away with self-reference, then it would presumably be meaningless. That seems like a hard line to take. I mean, it's not clear to me how one can get by with much in mathematics without self-reference.
Besides, it’s actually possible to formulate a version of the liar paradox without making use of self-reference at all. Consider the following pair of sentences:
The following statement is true.
The preceding statement is false.
Furthermore, it's not clear that we can't just construct versions of the liar like the following: “This sentence is either false or it is meaningless.” This isn't the simplest version, but does your view even get around such?
@@Philosophy_Overdose There most be a context in which it is meaningful. It may be true all day and night but if it doesn't lead to the potential to change the world to be a better world than it already is, what would meaning even mean? Self-referential is independent of scale. If the words don't refer to an external intent in an actionable way, they may as well be arbitrary.
@@Philosophy_Overdose Something between no possible practical application and not even interesting grammatically.
Science is rigor (or the body of knowledge thereby acquired). Logic is rigorously relationships which always replicate.
10:04 did you get Emperor Palpatine to voice Aristotle
Love the extremely old stuffy Aristotle voice
Evidence of the sense, Sir Bacon ? Yes, but what is it evidence of ? We walk from the shadows into the sunlight, and we say feel the warmth of the sun upon our skin... But is the warmth in the sunlight, or in our skin, or in our minds ? Where exactly is this warmth ? Where exactly is the light ? Is it really in the sun ? Or, is it really in ourselves -- in our perception of the sun ?
10:00
This is absurd. They talk as if Aristotle didn't gather facts and then use those facts to support his theories. If later thinkers treated Aristotle as if he couldn't be wrong, the fault is their own, not Aristotle's.
As Aridtotle could only have written his 'Socrates is mortal' syllogism after the death of Socrates then (if correctly translated)- isn't it contrary to his two fundamental principles, in that he used the present tense in '...is mortal' and not 'was mortal'. All (living)men are mortal(will die), Socrates was a man:
-------- Socrates is dead(was mortal).
39:40 sort of rubs me the wrong way. Not because I disagree with the guy, but because of how things have played out the previous years in academia. There is a sense something was lost in philosophy when people began to treat it (to my understanding) as a language unto itself. In other words, that the "traditional" Aristotelian way of logic, while insufficient, was more practical, and evolution of logic into something "semantic" rendered logic impotent. (I think deductive logic can easily be said to be the more masculine compared to inductive logic, since the big man Aristotle himself favored deductive logic. That's not logic, that's talk about gender! But I digress). While perhaps using an Aristotelian (you mean totalitarian? no, impossible! just kidding) way of logic could be of benefit, we shouldn't assume it is a direct antithesis to "deviant" or "modal" logic (I would argue "deviant" and "modal" also means "post-modern", which is akin to the word "liberal" and is said with the same amount of disgust by critics of academia) for the simple reason that Socrates (the big man himself!) was not an antithesis to Aristotle when he said, "I know that I know nothing", which isn't a whole lot different from what is said at 40:50 .
I would not equate ‘postmodern’ to ‘liberal’.
A rigorous system can allow a rigorous foundation for liberal principles, and a rigour-less system can disempower arguments we might have otherwise used to counter tyrants.
Personally I don’t think epistemological chaos is good for anybody. Anarchy is its own particularly pernicious kind of tyranny.
There’s a limit to systems, a la Gödel, but things can always get more hectic.
@@thomaskilroy3199 i can't disagree. i must admit, i do try to be more of a post-modernist/anarchist. and i had the same sentiment when I wrote my earlier paragraph.
@@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate Post-modernism is mostly about the rejection of traditional structures, logical arguments, and big narratives. These big narratives include the Marxist belief in class struggle, but also include individual freedom, selfless compassion, and the social contract.
Martin Heidegger, one of the most important influences of French post-modern post-structuralist philosophy, had his work used to justify the Nazi regime. Michel Foucault openly embraced Ayatollah Khomenei's ultra-conservative Islamic regime because he believed that "power" was more important than any traditional defense of human rights and individual freedoms.
There was a strange, amicable connection between the alt-right and post-modernist thinkers back in the days of President Donald Trump.
Post-modernism isn't really as anarchistic as you might believe.
@@lorax121323 interesting. Foreign policy seems to be the Achilles' Heel of many philosophers. I would also be interested in connections between the alt-right and post-modernist thinkers, seeing as how the alt-right seems to like to criticize post-modernists.
There is no absolute right and absolute wrong. Logic is to formulate questions that are intended to extract desirous answer by conflicting, ambiguous and shrewd situation to trap the respondents.
This is the meaning of Silence is Golden.
Is it absolutely right that there is no absolute right and absolute wrong?
I love schizophrenic word salad
Self defeating position
Indeed, as the others also suggest, what you say is a perfect example for an absolute Truth, for you are contradicting yourself by what you say.
7:25 *RIP, Hilary Putnam* ...judging from the colours, it doesn't look like he went to Heaven 😅
Yes, RIP, indeed. I'm sorry that I don't follow the subtlety of the joke. If anyone is in heaven, it's Professor Putnam! An empty set, perhaps.
@@Khuno2 hehe, i was just hinting at the video's colour filter from Hell :P
@@JonSebastianF LOL! That is indeed funny!
But I can have my cake and eat it too - what I can't do is eat my cake and have it too.
Logic is reasonable? I should think that if I'm using logic in a debate then there's no debate or I'm not using logic correctly.
Retard
One should even question how much of Aristotle's philosophy is actually based on his use of his formal logic. I think the answer to that is very little -- if, at all. In fact, in reading most , if not all, philosophy, one finds that logic is not so much systematically used as a rational tool for deriving conclusions, but rather as a haphazard means for attempting to justify conclusions that have been reached by other, less rational, methods. The so-called 'rational animal' is always more of a dogmatic beast than he is willing to admit.
It is interesting there appears to be no reference to the difference between Classical Logic of Russell and Electronic Logic reference an inclusive or (if you will excuse the 'or') exclusive excluded middle. The question how electronic logic of the brain creates and engages with language in our thoughts bridging from exclusive to inclusive is open.
The Second Paradox of Reason based on the observation that it is impossible humans to subject all sensation and information inputs to tests of logic leads, to selective application, usually only to areas we need for our lives. Thus vast amounts of memory, ideas etc :in human heads are in the form of non-logic where contradiction and inconsistency exist. The result is that we have to be unreasonable to reason. Were it not so, thinking would be impossible as our brains would quickly freeze on overload.
Contradiction is a non-logic word. It cannot be tolerated by logic so is should not exist as a word or thought. But it does. It is ironic that the ability to understand logic and use it depends on a word that cannot be subjected to logic. Language and how we think is vastly more interesting and sophisticated than the dull view we are little more than creatures akin to the flashing lights of antiquated computers.
Because the application of logic is suspended does not question its laws. Logic is a tool not our master. That we understand contradiction, something logic cannot tolerate, is evidence that logic, although hugely important, is only part of human understanding.
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that logic cannot account for contradiction? I cannot but think, in place of that statement, you meant to leave a question, and in place of those beliefs, wonderings.
It is ironic, yes, but to witness irony is to know that you are lacking in understanding, don't you think??? The appropriate response is to learn. Is it not the contradiction that is the arbiter of logic? In a world where all things simply are what they are, the perceived existence of contradiction is what demands determination, and it is this determination which, then, expands the horizon of our understanding as we are forced to accept the viability of the contradiction. Make no mistake, to reject the contradiction is to live in a fantasy and never know logicality which underpins reality.
@@bmerritt2433 Please show me how logic can be used to explain or justify contradiction. Contradiction is not tolerated by logic so how can it account for it? The presumption is on your side. I do not deny the vital importance of logic but suggest it is not the sole be all and end all. How can a proposition (a term I do not usually use) be tolerated if it is contradictory? 'Contradiction' is (really, is not) the ultimate contradictory proposition. Language and understanding are vastly more sophisticated than the view that logic alone dominates. Logic is not dismissed or destroyed by suspending the application of its rules.
The Second Law of Reason states it is necessary to be irrational to be rational. This is based on the impossiblity of the brain to apply logic to overwhelming quantities of information and sensory data. What happens is we choose, for immediate purposes of life, to subject a tiny part to tests of logic, the rest is consigned to non-logic. Non-logic words include movement, change, the emotions, etc. These words cannot be split or analyzed. Zeno, for instance, observed this of movement in his Paradox of the Arrow- which Russell thought was very important. Understanding relies on non-logic.
If a 'proposition' that is contradictory by definition is accepted, any proposition can be contradictory, which would run a coach and horses through logic which would, surely, be disastrous. I do not oppose or question logic. Rather I suggest understanding is vastly more sophisticated and interesting.
The omission to mention Electronic Logic constrasted to Classical logic was telling. The differences in treatment of the excluded middle are telling. The Classical Logic approach appears to suggest tolerance of contradiction in language- which is my point. Either this is right or it is not. The 'either' modifies the 'or' to exclusivity.
@@charlescawley9923 I must say, I find it infuriating and impossible to tolerate when a person, regardless of their titles, measures, efforts, or causes for confidence, says what "people" can and cannot do, instead of (being honest and)
merely owning their own limitations and limited awareness. They know only what they have done or witnessed. The achievements of those they know not are unknown, and thus, undeniable, yet they do deny them, so casually, in an effort to grasp a status of understanding. It is true, one can attain understanding without the drudgery of observation, but the key to doing so is honesty, something the entirety of the world seems to despise.
Why do you say "either or" when the obvious answer is "both"? Why both? Because to deny one is to create a fantasy reality in which they do not both exist. To deny the existence of one is merely to admit your own limitation and inability to see the other. "Find something true. Prove it false. Find something false. Prove it true." These are lessons for children where I come from. These are basic things.
The paradox of the arrow, of which I am previously unfamiliar, is clearly set within a realm removed from reality, constructed via the magical word "if". Those who tout its ability to be translated into reality, as well as those who say it is false, miss the point entirely, as is the norm. Does no one know the practical application of imagination? It is not a mere tool used to simulate reality. It is the antenna which connects us to the higher order, the inescapable law that is logicality. As we craft, in our minds, with full authority, we must know, even then, that these realms are subject to laws of logic. One who does not understand this, misses the point of it all, completely. All perception is un-logical, but it is logic that orders and connects them. I cannot understand you until I presume that you are ordered according to logic, and then, I can begin to make sense of you. In turn, I can presume that you are ordered according to logic, and thus, know that you are un-logical, making no sense, as logic does not have reason to order what is logical. Do you see now? That logic is cope? That logic is mercy? That logic is tolerance itself? As is truth. As is honesty. Truth is all encompassing. Honesty is all-accepting. Logic is what bridges the two, offering truth unto the honest soul. This...is also a lesson for a budding mind.
Those who say (and believe) "my way is the proper way of thinking", will not soon arrive at the place where I am waiting for even a single thinker.
@@bmerritt2433 Thank you for your lengthy slightly emotional reply.
I shall address your observations in detail.
"I must say, I find it infuriating and impossible to tolerate when a person, regardless of their titles, measures, efforts, or causes for confidence, says what "people" can and cannot do, instead of (being honest and)
merely owning their own limitations and limited awareness"
Insinutating dishonesty is something I am sure you did not intend. Admission of intolerance when faced with disagreement is, again, something I am sure you do not intend as, also, suggesting incapacity and lack of awareness.
"They know only what they have done or witnessed. The achievements of those they know not are unknown, and thus, undeniable, yet they do deny them, so casually, in an effort to grasp a status of understanding. It is true, one can attain understanding without the drudgery of observation, but the key to doing so is honesty, something the entirety of the world seems to despise."
Diverting from the argument suggesting lack of reference to authority and again insinuating dishonesty is, again, something you will surely not intend.
"Why do you say "either or" when the obvious answer is "both"? Why both?" I did not say the obvious answer is both. The point was to highlight the lingusitic modifier of 'either' to the classical logic view of disjunction that can permit both to be true in a disjunction as opposed to electronic logic that will not tolerate this. An electric switch cannot be on or on, or for that matter, off or off. It can, however, be on or off. This is fundamental.
"Because to deny one is to create a fantasy reality in which they do not both exist. To deny the existence of one is merely to admit your own limitation and inability to see the other. "Find something true. Prove it false. Find something false. Prove it true." These are lessons for children where I come from. These are basic things."
I am sure you did not intend the contempt in your reference to children. Do you know the different treatment of disjunction between Classical Logic and Electronic logic?
"The paradox of the arrow, of which I am previously unfamiliar, is clearly set within a realm removed from reality, constructed via the magical word "if". Russell thought it of supreme importance and said so. I do know somewhat more than, perhaps you choose to suggest.
"Those who tout its ability to be translated into reality, as well as those who say it is false, miss the point entirely, as is the norm. Does no one know the practical application of imagination? It is not a mere tool used to simulate reality. It is the antenna which connects us to the higher order, the inescapable law that is logicality." This sounds almost religious.
"As we craft, in our minds, with full authority, we must know, even then, that these realms are subject to laws of logic." Logic is not a human invention. Strangely, however, non-logic is. Non-logic does not deny logic, it is a suspension of the rules or laws of logic not a denial
"One who does not understand this, misses the point of it all, completely. All perception is un-logical, but it is logic that orders and connects them." Picture Theory, a la Wittgenstein, fails. Movement, back to the paradox of the arrow, cannot be seen as a picture. Anyone who has looked out of the window of a car or train will see blur as things pass. Blur is not physical reality. Logic cannot handle movement in a strict manner. The arrow and its paradox was part of the process that discovered Calculus and the foundation of modern science- particularly physics. It is monumentally important.
"I cannot understand you until I presume that you are ordered according to logic, and then, I can begin to make sense of you. In turn, I can presume that you are ordered according to logic, and thus, know that you are un-logical, making no sense, as logic does not have reason to order what is logical. Do you see now? That logic is cope? That logic is mercy? That logic is tolerance itself? As is truth. As is honesty. Truth is all encompassing. Honesty is all-accepting. Logic is what bridges the two, offering truth unto the honest soul. This...is also a lesson for a budding mind."
This is a circular argument dismissing observation, demonstration and experience, insisting you are right because you say you are right.
"Those who say (and believe) "my way is the proper way of thinking", will not soon arrive at the place where I am waiting for even a single thinker."
Read your last paragraph again.
The history of all modern science and techonology rests on the discovery of calculus by Leibiniz / Newton and those before and since who have contributed. The paradox of the arrow is related to infinitessimals. I am sure you know much, but knowing more about what logic cannot, strictly, absolutely handle might be useful.
I am not attacking logic. Far from it. As for the Second Paradox of Reason, it would be much appreciated if you could explain how we could possibly apply tests of logic to all information, perception and experience of our lives avoiding mental paralysis. Dismissing the paradox as fantasy or by some other fallacy is unconvincing.
Sounds like you're rationalizing because you privately want to believe two incompatable ideas.
Dreadful background noise during the narrators exposition. You might call it music.
I liked it 🤷♂️
The guy who first explained Bacon should have just said "He wanted to do induction".
Make your own documentary, vermin
Is there a difference between logic, reason and language?
In language one can say "anything", including paradoxes, contradictions, conflations, tautologies, lies, uncertainties, speculations, impossibilities and certainties. One can say God, God doesn't exist and ignorance or unknowability.
Can logic formalize contradiction? I think not. Merely asserting the "Liar's Paradox" disproves logic.
I dont think Reason is ...necessary. Evolution tells us that.
The limits: internal rules, and boundaries: external impressions of Reason and Logic seem inherent. Whereas language seems unbounded and continuously expansive.
Our knowledge of Nature is based both on impressions and inferences. Consciousness is the demesne of impressions. The demesne of inferences is...desire, will?
Where space and time limit our possibilities, language has no such limit. Language can narrate time travel movies. Reason and logic can only narrate the Big Bang.
السببية العقليه موجوده عند جميع الأحياء ولاكن بدرجات أعلاها هو الانسان وحقيقته الوجودية مازالت ناقصة و ستظل ناقصة إلى حين تتبلور إلى الأفضل مع الزمن .
Is that a quote (or a paraphrase) from Aristotle?
loved the logic, hated the music
sound waves
Calling logic a language is a categoric error. Logic can be expressed in many languages, and more than one language has been formulated for the specific purpose of expressing logic.
Just like an English sentence can be expressed in many different ways (be them languages or dialects), so can logic be expressed in many different ways. It is still a language, but can be split into many different dialects, if you will.
@@parliecharker4316, nope. Logic is a technology of thought; thought is prior to language. The thought to which the Spanish “vaca” is attached is the same thought as that to which “cow” is attached, which allows translation, but that thought is itself no word at all. People who insist that logic is a language are behaving as first-generation nominalists, who hadn't grasped the concept of, well, concepts.
☺️👂🏻💗✨
Logic is god is the law of the universe
Sorry Kurt, Bertrand says you aren't welcome here anymore.
Did he?
"The cat is on the mat."
That proposition is true if the cat is on the mat.
The proposition is false if the cat is anywhere else.
That's according to the law of the excluded middle.
Now, suppose the cat has one, two or three paws on the mat and three, two or one paws not on the mat.
The proposition appears to be partly true at best.
If you say it's true, you're ignoring the paws not on the mat.
If you say it's false, you're ignoring the paws that are on the mat.
The law of the excluded middle is flawed.
ha!
To think that logic is what you use it for...a convenient delusion. Use it or not, it remains what it is. Is it more itself in use or not?
The liar’s paradox seems to be a huge oversight to me. If the sentence that is written on a sheet of paper only says the word “false” or “not true” people are mixing two propositions at the same time. One proposition is “is the statement true?” And the other is “is the outcome of the sentence true?”
It doesn’t seem like a paradox to me. It seems like people are trying to assess two things at the same time and not realizing it.
Some roses aren't red and violets arent blue
Desert storm: sky news 😥repetition : however on a upside-down Word: 🤔🤔🎵🎵 John Mayall - The Train (1970) thanks the leprechaun 🤔🎵😥🏆🥇👑
JIMI HENDRIX - The Scandinavian Experience (1969)
Surrey Iron Railway 🤔👑🥇🏆🎵⏳
pff
How can you just skip a thousand years of philosophy in the Islamic world and talk about history and the development of logic , what a western view
So whilst there was exchanges between Islamic scholars and Thomas Aquinas on the interpretation of aristotles logic, those exchanges are not relevant for this video , they did not contribute any novel ideas in this particular area.
Does middle eastern philosophy acknowledge western philosophy in any of its schools?
This proposition is false.
Apply the law of the excluded middle to the above.