The nature of logic

[Eudaimonist]

Without language there would be no logic -- that is, because logic is based in signs and their should-be correct relation to objectivity, and signs literally constitute language, without language you -- wouldn't have logic. You'd have sensations, but sensations in themselves cannot be illogical. Things are illogical when things "clash" as mentioned above. Objectivity, sensations entailed in this, doesn't clash -- cannot clash, because it's objectivity. Things that clash imply a negation of objectivity.

It seems to me that you are right about this. It is difficult to imagine any human being engaging in logical thought without employing some sort of language, whether it be a conversational language such as English, or a symbolic language such as those used in mathematics, computer programming, or symbolic logic.

It may be that our conceptual faculty is greatly aided by the use of names (or symbols) to denote concepts. This may be necessary to help rapidly call concepts to mind. The word "cat" is going to help you retrieve the concept associated with the word much more quickly than going through a collection of memories of animals you have seen sometime in the past.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Silenus]

I think I agree with eudo and received on all this. Logic is part of consciousness and language. What I meant when I said logic hammers language to reality is that it makes sure the linguistic symbols we employ conjure the things in actuality. Its the law of identity a=a. If I can point at a tree and say tree and then point at a cat and say tree the symbol word tree no longer means the real tree. In fact, when we break any laws of logic, in basic language or more complex argument, I think we are losing the connection to reality, robbing our linguistic symbols of meaning, and descending into babble.

I guess what I was hoping is some insight into a problem that some seem to believe exists and I've never seen. If logic is a matter of consciousness, how can we be sure it is really connected to the reality out there? It really never bothered me, but many ask the question once the decision that logic is part of how we think is made. maybe someone could bring some light to bear of that subject. how do we know logic in the mind is actually making connections with logic out there? I’m asking because I don’t see this problem and I'm hoping someone can explain the problem. I feel like its on the same level as asking whether "time" is part of reality or not. Its a abstraction.

help me see the problem people I've read and talk to seem to think exists. . .

I feel like I've been very confusing here, probably because I’m confused by a problem I don’t see.

 

[Received]

I don't think there is a logic "out there" in objectivity. Anything that clashes or is illogical cannot objectively exist. Why? Because when things clash or are illogical this means that what we're attempting to define through language doesn't line up with objectivity -- doesn't exist. Which means that things that are illogical don't exist; illogicality is a negation; but just because something hasn't been revealed to be illogical doesn't mean that it is de facto logical. That's the cloud of agnosticism that enshrouds all our experience with objectivity. We simply cannot know whether our symbolic associations really "match" with objectivity. We just can't. It's the problem of knowledge with another covering: the problem of true, justified belief. Well, we can't tell if a symbolic association is true or logical just because we make it. Experience proves this. What we initially thought was a rabbit ended up being, say, a snow-pile.

Nonetheless, I don't think there is an "out there" logic. Logic works negatively to reveal what isn't, that is, what cannot exist, what isn't objective.

It really is a terribly hard question.