Go 4th wrote:
> John Jones wrote:
>> Go 4th wrote:
>>> John Jones wrote:
>>>> Logic is often presented as being independent of any empirical, or
>>>> practical systems and restrictions, even seen by many philosophers
>>>> (Frege, Kant, Witt) as the laws of thought. Logic seems to require no
>>>> exterior justification, yet it provides the rationale for all of
>>>> mankind's ventures. It can do this because Logic is independent,
>>>> unalloyed. Accordingly, Logic must 'look after itself', as Wittgenstein
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> But what is the 'logical' status of a system that is spontaneously
>>>> ever-present as it were, that is independent from any other named thing
>>>> or system? That is, what is the logical status of a system that pulls
>>>> itself up by its own bootstraps? Three prospects suggest themselves,
>>>> that seem to suggest that Logic is not a system itself:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Logic instantiates systems
>>>> 2) Logic is a sufficient condition of systems
>>>> 2) Logic is a necessary condition of systems
>>> If by "logic" you mean the tradition of binary thought being THE
>>> groundsource for all systems, then probably not. Just by virtue of so
>>> many alternative language-games and semiotic schemes (fuzzy logic,
>>> etc) having evolved since classical reasoning, this diverse situation
>>> actually begs subsumption under a broader category or underlying
>>> template for generating so many formal orders.
>> Yes, but my point was that logic cannot be a system or systems, such as
>> those you suggest, because the rules for the pertinent application of a
>> system must be independent of any system.
>>
>
> But if you already have rules "for pertinent application", then you
> have yet another plan or regulated structure (system).
Yes, the rules for pertinent application would not possess the
properties of a system, rather they would instantiate systems. So a rule
(and that's not a good use of the word rule) in this case would not be
constituted of objects or demonstrate sequence or causality. For
example, the basis for a pertinent application of walking to the fridge
could be hunger.
>> This is why I suggested that Logic is independent of systems, so that it
>> either instantiates systems, or provides a sufficient or necessary
>> condition for them.
>>
>> So, therefore, this 'broader category' that you speak of cannot be
>> logical, if logic is a system.
>>
>
> And the latter case would be difficult to nullify. Logic is usually
> going to be defined as either the study of inference and reasoning or
> a particular system / theory of logic, not something floating prior to
> such a critical method and variety of formal orders. I'm not even sure
> that "nomothetical" (rule-making, lawgiving) would escape "system"
> since it also seems to require regulatory judgements beforehand for
> producing more rules / laws (they could be made arbitrarily, though,
> if such a product would work).
Yes, a rule in the ordinary sense is an object-based system. It is
manifested not by logic or systems but by spontaneous frameworks, such
as colour, hunger, and for Kant, space and time. I never thought that
logic was a system though, nor an instantiator of systems. My view is
that logic mimics the physical world.
> Using the etymological root of logic (Logos) may not help either if
> the interpretation as "the source of world intelligibility and order"
> could be construed as a system, yet again. The more literal meaning of
> "word, discourse" might endure only if any initial ambiguity of how it
> would pertain to being a nonsystemic groundsource for systems could be
> elucidated.
Yes, though a source need not be a system. Systems require manifesting
frameworks which are themselves not systems.
