GENIUS FORUMS

Matt,

Lets say one were to accept that the analytic/synthetic distinction is meaningless. What then are we to say about a statement such as "all bachelors are unmarried"? It would seem that such a statement is true, and it would seem that it is true because of the meaning of its terms. If we should conclude that this is an unsatisfactory explanation for such a thing, then we'd seemingly have to say that it is untrue, or otherwise that it is true only by virtue of the fact that we say it is. Why shouldn't we conclude that "all bachelors are married" after all? You can't prove to me that bachelors aren't married unless you appeal to the meaning of the terms.

I would just say there's knowledge á priori and knowledge á posteriori.

A true statement is either true by definition or true to the best of our determination by observation.

"All bachelors are unmarried" is true by definition. A bachelor is defined to be an unmarried man.

The thing that makes the analytic/synthetic dichotomy fundamentally unreal is that things exist relative to other things, and don't have any existence within themselves. So even to break something up into its constituent parts sends you romping through the universe.

Analysis can't really be done while staying within a particular conception. I don't even think that idea makes sense at all. It would be more like concentration or something if you took the idea to its ultimate conclusion.

Matt,

I would just say there's knowledge á priori and knowledge á posteriori.

That distinction has to do with the means by which the knowledge is acquired: observation or thought. I think there are probably things which could be true independent of how we happen to use words, and yet that can be discovered through thought alone. Would you dispute this?

A true statement is either true by definition or true to the best of our determination by observation.

Once again, why is it that you think something must only be true within the realm of linguistics if one does not observe it to be true?

things exist relative to other things, and don't have any existence within themselves.

Why do you think this?

ExpectantlyIronic,

I would just say there's knowledge á priori and knowledge á posteriori.

That distinction has to do with the means by which the knowledge is acquired: observation or thought. I think there are probably things which could be true independent of how we happen to use words, and yet that can be discovered through thought alone. Would you dispute this?

I guess it depends on what you mean. Could you give me an example?

A true statement is either true by definition or true to the best of our determination by observation.

Once again, why is it that you think something must only be true within the realm of linguistics if one does not observe it to be true?

By "definition" I mean more than mere words, so the term "linguistics" doesn't really apply to my way of thinking. Language is merely descriptive. But I'll answer the question: Why is it that I think truth can only be determined with pure logic and not by observation?

For one, observation is finite. You can only observe one tiny part of the universe at a time. Logic, on the other hand, can reveal things that are true in every place and every time in the universe. For example, "All bachelors are unmarried" cannot be falsified anywhere or at any time.

Another thing is that observation doesn't stand on its own. There's no such thing as a "pure observation"; it's always accompanied by an interpretation that rests on pure logic. Even if the logical stage of the process of experiential comprehension happens unconsciously, it still functions and is inescapable. For example, the argument that you and David Quinn were talking about in the other thread, that experiences are happening and can't be denied. This logic underpins the reasoning of every conscious being whether they realize it or not, because every conscious being has experiences, otherwise they wouldn't be conscious. But that fact is not something that can be observed, it has to be reasoned out in order to come to know it.

things exist relative to other things, and don't have any existence within themselves.

Why do you think this?

Because things are defined in terms of other things.

DHodges wrote:Why do you think an analytic truth must be obvious?

Yeah, Kant was so wrong about this. So wrong. (thinking of section V of the Critique)

Empirical considerations should never be confused with failures of logic. Even if it takes a hundred years to think of a logical argument, that doesn't make it any less logical. The act of imagining something is an problem of practicality, but the application of the imagining in a logical argument is not.

Another irrelevancy is the practical application of the logical answer. Whether it has practical value or not, that doesn't affect the logic of it. That an unmarried man is a bachelor is true whether any unmarried men exist or not. Their existence is simply irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

Matt,

For one, observation is finite. You can only observe one tiny part of the universe at a time. Logic, on the other hand, can reveal things that are true in every place and every time in the universe. For example, "All bachelors are unmarried" cannot be falsified anywhere or at any time.

It is false to anyone who doesn't know English. Or, at least, devoid of any meaning. It says nothing beyond how we happen to use terms. If you don't accept as much, I'll ask you to suggest to me what "all bachelors are unmarried" really means, in such a way that it can't be interpreted as being a language-specific truth.

Another thing is that observation doesn't stand on its own. There's no such thing as a "pure observation"; it's always accompanied by an interpretation that rests on pure logic. Even if the logical stage of the process of experiential comprehension happens unconsciously, it still functions and is inescapable.

There's no doubt that sense-data is filtered through the cognitive process. Nevertheless, things that we experience are a cognitive process. I have a great deal of hesitation towards the suggestion that such processes are "logical" in the same sense as the experience of working out a math problem is logical. Regardless, I don't see how this demonstrates that "analytic truths" or truths that appear to be true only due to the meaning of terms, actually say something about more then the usage of terms.

But that fact is not something that can be observed, it has to be reasoned out in order to come to know it.

To suggest that experience is accepted as valid by everyone regardless of whether they've thought it out or not, and then to say that one can only know it's valid by reason, seems to be contradictory. You can suggest that one must unconsciously reason such things out, but I'd retort by saying that one simply "unconsciously" accepts it. You seem to be making the mistake of taking our conscious experience of thought, and highly abstract modes of discussion and thinking, and placing them in the rather mechanical cognitive process itself. I don't believe that conscious experience is necessary for human thought or behavior, in that it merely rests upon, emerges, or simply is the cognitive processes that lead to such behavior and thought. Incidentally, I don't think you can prove that something is certain beyond any shadow of a doubt using logic independent of axioms for the reasons I explained to David in the thread you referenced.

Matt,

Another irrelevancy is the practical application of the logical answer. Whether it has practical value or not, that doesn't affect the logic of it. That an unmarried man is a bachelor is true whether any unmarried men exist or not. Their existence is simply irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

If we are to view truth in such a way, why should anyone be concerned with it? If I ask someone if the "snow is white" I'm not concerned about the logical veracity of the statement, rather I want to know if what I call "the snow" is actually what I call "white". It would seem that the only "truth" that actually matters is the sort that is reflective of the world in such a way.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Matt,

Another irrelevancy is the practical application of the logical answer. Whether it has practical value or not, that doesn't affect the logic of it. That an unmarried man is a bachelor is true whether any unmarried men exist or not. Their existence is simply irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

If we are to view truth in such a way, why should anyone be concerned with it? If I ask someone if the "snow is white" I'm not concerned about the logical veracity of the statement, rather I want to know if what I call "the snow" is actually what I call "white". It would seem that the only "truth" that actually matters is the sort that is reflective of the world in such a way.

I would say ‘reflective of consistent experiences’.

White may not be as white for a Polar Bear, nor a Bee. But the fact remains, that all is true referentially, so saying reflective of the world as in ‘empirical’, doesn’t really make much sense, for we know that violet is as certain for a bee as is white for us for the same thing, which is reflection of experiences, irrelevant of what might “actually” be there, because nothing could “actually” be there or could have any actuality sans observer.

ExI wrote:

If we are to view truth in such a way, why should anyone be concerned with it? If I ask someone if the "snow is white" I'm not concerned about the logical veracity of the statement, rather I want to know if what I call "the snow" is actually what I call "white".

Wow. Wot? You mean, there's a difference?

Sapius,

I would say ‘reflective of consistent experiences’.

That's more-or-less what I meant by "world". I'm under no illusion that what we perceive exists exactly as it is perceived, and furthermore, am under no illusion that we can understand the "world" beyond our perceptions of it.

White may not be as white for a Polar Bear, nor a Bee.

A statement such as "the snow is white" generally means "the phenomena we refer to as snow is what we would call white: whereas white refers to what a normal human observer would call as much if they were to view it under standard white light." We could, of course, go on to add further qualifications to our statement, but such things are generally taken as implicit.

Leyla,

Wow. Wot? You mean, there's a difference?

A proposition is considered to be logically true if and only if it can be said to follow from its axioms. A statement need not correspond to reality to be considered logically sound. Take for instance:

P1: Nothing that isn't a unicorn has horns.
P2: There are things with horns.
C: Thus, there are unicorns.

That statement is logically true in that its conclusion follows from its premises. If we reject the statement, we should say that we do so on the grounds that its axioms are untrue. We could suggest that the statement "unicorns exist" is logically flawed if we were to think that a person making it derived it using logic, but nevertheless, the logical veracity of any particular statement doesn't depend upon correspondence to reality.

This reminds me of another interesting point. A belief that "all bachelors are unmarried" doesn't normally have its foundations in logic. Generally, one simply accepts it as axiomatic that such a thing is true, due to the fact that "bachelor" means "unmarried man". Thus, I think its faulty to suggest that all non-empirical statements that are held to be true are seen as much because of logic. Rather, I think we should say that we hold such statements to be true because we've learned to use the word "true" in such a manner.

I understand exactly what you're saying, ExI. But I am having some emotional problems with it!

At this point, all I am going to say is that if there's one thing that pisses me off in the world, it's that logic.

P1: Nothing that isn't a unicorn has horns.
P2: There are things with horns.
C: Thus, there are unicorns.

I mean, what the hell kind of logic is that, really?? [rhetorical]

Therefore, I need to give this more thought.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:

For one, observation is finite. You can only observe one tiny part of the universe at a time. Logic, on the other hand, can reveal things that are true in every place and every time in the universe. For example, "All bachelors are unmarried" cannot be falsified anywhere or at any time.

It is false to anyone who doesn't know English. Or, at least, devoid of any meaning.

You can't falsify an argument by never becoming aware of it.

It says nothing beyond how we happen to use terms. If you don't accept as much, I'll ask you to suggest to me what "all bachelors are unmarried" really means, in such a way that it can't be interpreted as being a language-specific truth.

It means that Beethoven never once ate dinner with his mother-in-law.

Another thing is that observation doesn't stand on its own. There's no such thing as a "pure observation"; it's always accompanied by an interpretation that rests on pure logic. Even if the logical stage of the process of experiential comprehension happens unconsciously, it still functions and is inescapable.

There's no doubt that sense-data is filtered through the cognitive process. Nevertheless, things that we experience are a cognitive process.

I agree.

I have a great deal of hesitation towards the suggestion that such processes are "logical" in the same sense as the experience of working out a math problem is logical.

I can relate with that, but they are. There is only one type of logic and it can be used for an infinite number of purposes. It is literally infinite in the deepest sense of the word.

Regardless, I don't see how this demonstrates that "analytic truths" or truths that appear to be true only due to the meaning of terms, actually say something about more then the usage of terms.

Analyzing these types of truths is more about analyzing the self and our position in the universe rather than acquiring empirical knowledge. It has a lot to do with looking at our thoughts and seeing and becoming more aware of the meanings they have and their connections to everything. I don't know how to defend it, but it's about wisdom.

But that fact is not something that can be observed, it has to be reasoned out in order to come to know it.

To suggest that experience is accepted as valid by everyone regardless of whether they've thought it out or not, and then to say that one can only know it's valid by reason, seems to be contradictory.

No, sorry, I meant they can only know the reason why it is valid by reason. Most people simply assume it's valid without knowing why. They don't have self-knowledge in this.

You can suggest that one must unconsciously reason such things out, but I'd retort by saying that one simply "unconsciously" accepts it.

No, I agree with you here.

You seem to be making the mistake of taking our conscious experience of thought, and highly abstract modes of discussion and thinking, and placing them in the rather mechanical cognitive process itself.

Yes, but the modes of discussion are highly abstract because of the delusions people have, not because of the complexity of the topic. Truth is actually too simple for most people to comprehend, they don't have the virtue to comprehend it, so you kind of have to circle around it and hope that they see it. So, it's hard to explain, but it's not anything complicated. It's just one thought, so to speak.

I don't believe that conscious experience is necessary for human thought or behavior, in that it merely rests upon, emerges, or simply is the cognitive processes that lead to such behavior and thought. Incidentally, I don't think you can prove that something is certain beyond any shadow of a doubt using logic independent of axioms for the reasons I explained to David in the thread you referenced.

Logic isn't something that was created by academics. It's the natural function of the mind when it operates unrestricted by emotional attachment.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:

Another irrelevancy is the practical application of the logical answer. Whether it has practical value or not, that doesn't affect the logic of it. That an unmarried man is a bachelor is true whether any unmarried men exist or not. Their existence is simply irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

If we are to view truth in such a way, why should anyone be concerned with it? If I ask someone if the "snow is white" I'm not concerned about the logical veracity of the statement, rather I want to know if what I call "the snow" is actually what I call "white". It would seem that the only "truth" that actually matters is the sort that is reflective of the world in such a way.

I tried to explain this in the previous post. Empirical knowledge is good, but wisdom is good, too. Better, actually, because empirical knowledge is relatively easy to acquire, and having wisdom makes it even easier because your thinking is clearer not being burdened by ignorance.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:This reminds me of another interesting point. A belief that "all bachelors are unmarried" doesn't normally have its foundations in logic. Generally, one simply accepts it as axiomatic that such a thing is true, due to the fact that "bachelor" means "unmarried man".

We normally accept it because logic is natural. It's unconscious in most people, but it still operates to a certain extent. If it didn't, the person would have to be institutionalized.

Thus, I think its faulty to suggest that all non-empirical statements that are held to be true are seen as much because of logic. Rather, I think we should say that we hold such statements to be true because we've learned to use the word "true" in such a manner.

But truth is real, and the word "true" points to it. It doesn't really matter why we do this, but yeah, we learned to do it.

Matt,

You make a lot of interesting points that I'll have to mull over a bit, but I'll go ahead and try to tackle one of them now.

It means that Beethoven never once ate dinner with his mother-in-law.

One wouldn't even have to know that "all bachelors are unmarried" to know this. You would, on the other hand, need to know that Beethoven never got married. So whatever "all bachelors are unmarried" points to, it isn't the same concept as exists behind "Beethoven never once ate dinner with his mother-in-law".

That's true. I was just trying to point out that although truths may seem meaningless in isolation, they can be applied to the real world and give us information in that way. Nothing is isolated from anything else, in other words.