[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 2.14 MB, 1700x2275, Aristotle_Altemps_Inv8575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12255804 No.12255804 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the Indian equivalent to Aristotle?
Did any of the ancient Indian philosophers ever come up with the non-contradiction principle?

>> No.12255818

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-india/

>> No.12255822
File: 171 KB, 1080x1005, Screenshot_20181219-222149_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12255822

They came up with the opposite. Look up Nagarjuna.

>> No.12255845

>>12255804
It's mentioned in some of the writings of the Vedanta commentaries on the Brahma Sutras as part of the long debates in their writings.

>> No.12255854

>>12255822
haha so everything can be everything?
nice logic lets see how far that gets you

>> No.12255879

>>12255854
I'm sure it's more nuanced than that, but I won't pretend to understand it. Hopefully someone will come into the thread and explain.

>> No.12255968

>>12255804
Poo=Loo

>> No.12256035

>>12255854
>>12255879
Not sure what's confusing here.
Forget the notation and just think about the principle intuitively.
Suppose you make any logical proposition. Then it can be true or false. It could be neither true nor false. Or it could be both true and false.
Intuitively this makes sense because there are of course 4 combinations of the set {true, false} which can each be assigned to the same proposition.

>> No.12256096

>>12255854
Wtf do you know any logic? What you said doesn't follow at all

>> No.12256145

>>12256035
That violates the principle of non contradiction. I don't understand how that is possible.

>> No.12256150

>>12256145
And the principle of the excluded middle.

>> No.12256190

The Indians harldy ever got past a Parmenides, but it's okay because the principle of non-contradiction begins with Parmenides anyway.

>> No.12256204

>>12255804
Aristotle believes in purposive or teleological explanation of the world and not mechanistic explanation. Emergence of effect from cause is because of some purpose and that purpose is the final cause. Final cause guides and regulate the efficient cause. Hence, the final cause is the real cause of becoming and movement in the world. According to Aristotle, all these four cause are present in every event of effect. He Says, except material cause all other cause can be reduced to the formal cause. So there are finally two main cause material cause and formal cause.... His words are nothing but the exogenous immanentization of diagrammatic flow charts

>> No.12256212

>>12256035
"Makes intuitive sense" however is different from "makes actual sense".
Non-WASPs can't into philosophy, that's all there is to it.

>> No.12256237

>>12256145
>>12256150
Because it's not using the same axioms. Logic is not a unique system and you don't need a binary outcome for any logical proposition by any kind of necessity. It can be perfect valid to take a set of axioms where there is a ternary state (e.g. quantum mechanics in which you can have spin up, spin down, or neither spin up nor spin down, which is distinct from a lack of knowledge of whether it is up or down and is therefore a third state of its own) and in this case they've taken 4 distinct logical states, although admittedly something being both true and false is not the most practical.
But it's a perfectly valid axiom of logic. You just might find another set of axioms more frequently useful.

>> No.12256244

>>12256237
>Because it's using the wrong axioms.
ftfy

>> No.12256257

>>12255822
holy shit indians are retarded

>> No.12256260

>>12256257
The East and the West will never be reconciled.

>> No.12256277

>>12256244
Well not necessarily, I gave an example of where you might take different axioms for perfectly practical reasons.
We've constructed ternary logic-based computers before, as well.
There's no reason 4 valued logic is actually wrong, it just might seem counterintuitive.

>> No.12256301

The coexistence of contradictions is one of the most mind expanding things to contemplate.

>> No.12256307

>>12256277
That is fair enought, but when you need to build the fundations of reasoning the most convenient and constructive way to do so is through binary logic. We have managed to teach computers trinary Logic after litteral millennia refining reasoning through binary logic and We were clearly right with doing that. Proof: our system of logic permits us to conceive of other systems of logic. Theirs can't: It's all-inclusive like eastern philosophy tends to be, and as such most of the conclusions are neither there nor here.

>> No.12256324

>>12256301
...But you also end up not teaching any actual conclusion, since anything can be anything.

>> No.12256331

>>12256324
Well what do you actually get out of 'proving' a logical system to be consistent? It's very overrated.

>> No.12256337

>>12256307
Thats not a very convincing attempt at proof, especially since an obvious experiment with higher valued logic is to simply drop a state or two, which is more obvious a step than adding them, but I do agree that empirically speaking ours tended to be more practical.

>> No.12256374

>>12255804
The Nyaya school of Hindu philosophy were probably the closest, but they focused on epistemology and metaphysics over pure logic.

>> No.12256383

>>12256277
dude seriously if you accept that logic than you can say:
statement: apple is green
conclusion one: apple is green
conclusion two: apple is not green
conclusion three:both conclusion one and two are true
conclusion four: both conclusion one and two are not true
this doesn't help you accurately define terminology within a rigorous scientific methodology which we are only able to do thanks to Aristotle's effort to ground objects as substances based on their relationship to language and is set axiomatically within the logic of the academic language which he helped so much construct.
sure if the data that present itself such as in the quantum level of mechanics, is of uncertain nature and can't be said to itself exist rather than its contradiction than further exploration must provide the evidence to prove which one is more accurate as a representation of what may be looked at as the-thing-in-itself.
at any rate there is enough proof that this "absolute value" type of thinking is exactly what has enabled the west to present so much more intellectual depth when compared with other cultural entities.
It is situated right inside the fundamental structure of western logic and thinking.

>> No.12256386

>>12256331
You get to believe that the world makes sense and can be understood; might that be True or not, It's usefull.
>>12256337
Perhaps on our perspective. Are there indian philosophers who tried to remove a state and wrote about their results?

>> No.12256418

>>12256386
>You get to believe that the world makes sense and can be understood; might that be True or not, It's usefull.
You don't. Because if a logical system is inconsistent it might prove itself to be consistent, so whether it is really consistent or inconsistent, in both cases you might be able to show it is consistent. So you've gained very little by proving its own consistency.

>> No.12256424

LOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD

>> No.12256432

>>12256418
You're just playing with words now. You understood perfectly What I meant and obscuring the point won't help.

>> No.12256434

>>12256383
Right but the point is those statements are actually perfectly fine if you've already set up this structure due to choosing this axiom.
The quantum example is good because it's often misinterpreted as being 'uncertain' but is actually in a state of being neither 'true' nor 'false.' (A particle does not actually take any definite spin until it interacts, it's not that we just don't know. It doesn't have either of those logical states yet)
Thats why I used that example. The point is that we don't necessarily need to stick with one set of logic for all cases. There's nothing inherently wrong with setting up whatever logic is most convenient and if that means we take more than 2 logical states and forget about the axiom of the excluded middle then so be it.
It can be helpful to not bother attaching the labels of true or false to it to avoid it sounding weirder than it is. It's not all that complicated when it comes down to it. It's just that experience often (but not always) is easier described by using different axioms.

>> No.12256443

>>12256383
I don't think you understand what that anon said. In his example from quantum physics it's not uncertainty masking a binary reality, there really are three possibilities: spin up, spin down, or neither.

>> No.12256449

>>12256432
The world would appear to make sense whether it's consistent or not.
If it's a question of practicality I already agree that this was less practical that the western system. It's just that there's no hard barrier for them with what they've done. Just let (true and false) and (neither true nor false) be almost never used and you're going to be mostly ok to go.

>> No.12256453

>>12256383
Well, yes, that apple example is precisely what it's saying. It's not actually wrong, it just sounds weird.
You'd just say something like if I have not observed the apple then it is not green or red or maybe not even there or not there.
Which is already sounding pretty eastern.

>> No.12256459

>>12256449
>>The world would appear to make sense whether it's consistent or not.
false equivalence: the fact that to me, shepherd in the caucasus, makes perfect sense that the world as I experience should be as it is it doesn't mean that the shaman of my tribe can't convince me of the fact that rocks are alive, Even If I Never experienced anything that would make me conclude as much.

>> No.12256465

>>12256443
Could this be rephrased as spin vs no spin?

>> No.12256480

>>12256465
Sure, if you're using spin as shorthand for "one of spin up or spin down" which still gives you three distinct possibilities.

>> No.12256490

>>12256480
No, There either is spin (either up or down) or no spin.
Wasn't it supposed to be easy to drop a status from thrinary logic?

>> No.12256494

>>12256434
I agree completely Anon
But Aristotle did not espouse such nonsensical logic in his own system per say but rather mistakingly adressed what he called the primary substance as being able to accept contradiction itself and only itself he even talked about how beliefs and propositions therefore must be secondary substances as they are made of out of two constants and variation is impossible when trying to define a belief or a statement as true or false because their existence itself is what is up for question and can’t allow change.
And that was the point of the OP.

>> No.12256512

>>12256490
>thrinary
So what are you actually asking? Are you asking can we modify our logic to ban a third state in our axioms (yes, because you're doing it at the level of an axiom and therefore you can do whatever you want) or are you asking about an observation?
Now if youve asked a question about the actual physical observation theres still another mistake. You cant say spin or no spin either. You still have an indeterminate possibility. A particle has the option of simply not taking any definite state at all.
If we ignore this (it's impossible but I'll humour the question that was intended) Yes sure you can consider two steps, spin or no spin, if spin then up or down, but that's just a more complicated way of saying there are three logical states. And therefore why not just choose the natural ternary logic instead of wasting your time playing word games.
But essentially the whole 'weirdness'of quantum physics comes from the fact that there really is a third indeterminate possibility.

>> No.12256528

>>12256512
The shorter answer to this is that you can easily deal with them in both ways. The maths we use to describe the phenomenon uses the principle of no middle or whatever. While we're still happy to allow the indeterminate state. Easy.
I don't know how to dress it up in fancy language. We just do it all the time though

>> No.12256735

>>12255804

Those ming-mongs that say Brahman and Atman are not one.

>> No.12256950

>>12255854
It got Buddhism pretty far desu

>> No.12256976

>>12256190
Wrong, kiddo. They came up with most of Parmenides ideas hundreds of years before him with the pre-Buddhist Upanishads and Indian philosophy has a very wide range of subjects it addresses.

>> No.12256986

>>12255854
>so everything can be everything?
no, look up paraonsistency

>> No.12257304

>>12256976
Nobody here really likes to accept or acknowledge the fact that Indians not only beat the Greeks in speed, but depth as well. Plato understood nondualism to a certain degree, but the Indians preceding had not only seen this, they took it to its conclusion. Not to mention, the structure of society which Plato presents in the Republic, is an inferior form of the Varna-shastra, or if not inferior, is the same concept arrived at later. Philosopher-kings, then, were a concept already in existence anywhere from 600-1000 years before Plato first wrote of the concept, in the form of the priestly-ruling class of the Indians.

>> No.12257323

>>12257304
Yes, Megasthenes wrote about the Brahmins being examples of philosopher-kings

>> No.12257345

>>12255822
Explain me those X shit, i see it everywhere but i cant understand this

t. Brainlet

>> No.12257366
File: 66 KB, 645x729, small heada.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12257366

Aristotelian logic was fruitless, everything has been accomplished in spite of it. The scientific revolution was just a result of "mathmatizing" natural motion and a different formal logic could of handled it better.

>> No.12257375

>>12255804
There was no Indian equivalent of Aristotle, which is why it has remained an iron age shithole to this day.

Imagine a West build on Plato's bullshit, and you will see a society of pale mokeys shitting in the street and pointing at the sky.

>> No.12257380
File: 109 KB, 800x600, plato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12257380

>>12257375
>Imagine a West build on Plato's bullshit

t. Degenerate

>> No.12257388

>>12257380
Go back to sucking your babas cock mental streetshitter

>> No.12257394

>>12255804
your premise is flawed. why should each culture have an equivalent of something from some other arbitrary culture? why can't you just take each culture on its own terms? analogy is useful but it can't be the only tool you use to explore the unfamiliar. to use an analogy...it's like someone theorizing about the forest using the contents of his own house. he might know about wood, but he has no idea what a tree really is.

>> No.12257397

>>12256383
There are many logics, you retard. They're largely based on application and context. Actually study logic instead of spouting thousand-year-old infantile shit.

>> No.12257411

>>12256459
More like your shaman and culture would easily convince you that rocks are alive while you're a child, deeply embedded in your mind. No matter how 'rational' and critical you later will develop and grow to be, that is there as a foundational belief. This is the essence of everything we believe in, there is no actual reason or logic to our collection of beliefs.

>> No.12257426

>>12255854
>>12256257

Are you guys actually retarded? Notice at the bottom of that picture is says, "see De Morgan's laws". This is the same concept. De Morgan's laws are used in the process of designing basically every circuit known to man. It's logic that is extremely fundamental to electronic engineering

>>12257345
I don't even know how to explain it without rephrasing what's already said in the picture. An abstraction of circuit components that makes this more easily comprehensible is "gates". There are one-input gates called "inverters" that take a bit going into it and inherently invert it (if you have a 1 going in, you get a 0 going out). What is specifically going in doesn't really matter, just the base logic. So we can refer to the "0 or 1" going in as X. If we put X in we get not X out, vice versa. For two-input gates, the most common/cheap in real-life circuits are NAND gates. This is logically an inverted AND gate, where the AND gate is logically in series with an inverter. You have two inputs, and one output. The gate only outputs a 0 when both inputs are 1. If you put X into both gates, you get not(X AND X) out; if X in this case is 0, then you get 1 out. If X in this case is 1, then you get 0 out. This is an application of the "tetralemma".

>> No.12257569

>>12257397
Stop with this postmodern bullshit

>> No.12257593

>>12257569
Fuck off dumb cunt. Logic goes well beyond basic classical logic. More so, it intertwined with Mathematics, Linguistics, and Computer Science. This has no relation to postmodernism, which is some worn ideas masked by charlatanry.

>> No.12257597

>>12257569
wow, who knew carnap was a postmodernist!
>In logic there are no morals. Everyone is at liberty to build his own logic, i.e. his own language, as he wishes. All that is required of him is that, if he wishes to discuss it, he must state his methods clearly, and give syntactical rules instead of philosophical arguments.

>> No.12257828

>>12257597
Analytic philosophy is dry, lifeless bullshit made to fit the rules of math rather than to explain what-is as it is.
Mathematics can model any given situation, and if we assume the proper mode of interpretation for reality to be mathematical instead of making mathematics be realistic, we would not allow ourselves to seek in nature the explanation for itself. Therefore, mathematics can only explain artificial, hypothetical "realities" and never actuality.

>> No.12257832

>>12257426
>electronic engineering
yikes. so you are retarded

>> No.12257838

>>12257828
and also postmodern!

>> No.12257843

>>12257832
>yikes
so you are retarded

>> No.12257881

>>12255804
You guys realize a lot of modern mathematics can be built without the law of excluded middle right ?

It's a bit harder for the principle of noncontradiction, but actually every theorem that can be proven without it has an equivalent that can be proven with it and vice-versa.

>> No.12257893

>>12257881
>You guys realize a lot of modern mathematics can be built without the law of excluded middle right ?
yeah but constructive maths is associated with computer science so I assume it's plebeian
>It's a bit harder for the principle of noncontradiction, but actually every theorem that can be proven without it has an equivalent that can be proven with it and vice-versa.
where can I read about this?

>> No.12258135

>>12257828
ok brainlet

>> No.12258173

>>12257832
what, i studied electronic engineering and im an electronic engineer by job title. i refer to it specifically because it is what i know. electrical engineering is a broader discipline but US degrees don't seem to differentiate

this reply was a nice, positive call and response answer to my previous question, "are you retarded?"

>> No.12259477

>>12258135
nice refutation