I HATE LOGIC

[Anonymous No.24059998]

Why is most "logic" in philosophy so shallow and presumptive in how it demonstrates its assertions. Most philosophers ive encountered that examine sentences and lines of reasoning and declares them and their premises/conclusions true or false fail to account for context and always judge statements according to a set of arbitrary univeral conditions through which their examination is conducted, given to be true, that always affirm their metaphyical bias and ignore paradigmatic/contextual variability that affect the validity and implications of said reasoning. Logic that examines arguments and reasoning isolated from the system and set in which they are contained, ignoring modality, just amounts to obvious bullshit that no one needs to explain or an insane level of reductionism that isnt philosophically useful at all. Am i just retarded and there's something i'm not seeing? Try to change my mind. I'll smash my dick with a hammer if I ever have to encounter formal logic again. The fixation with "logic" also lends itself to vulgar dogmatic materialism and scientism

[Anonymous No.24060016]

>>24059998
>scientism
can you not use this word? and yes logic is dumb but so is philosophy. mathematics has a monopoly on explaining the meaning of words and you can't go very far beyond that.

[Anonymous No.24060028]

>>24059998
>scientism
can you not use this word?

[Anonymous No.24060042]

>>24060028
this is my problem with the word, it has no actual meaning but just schizophrenic 4chan associations with basedjak images.
the problem with science is mainly the reductionism where people think that biology reduces to chemistry which reduces to physics, and this is not really a problem with science but with physics and the physics cult. the problem is not that they think it refutes god or proves materialism or something. every college introductory class on philosophy of science explains that science does not disprove le based spiritual shit you people like, and no serious person ascribes to your meme of "scientism" except literally who caricatures with bachelor degrees like professor dave.

[Anonymous No.24060074]

>>24059998
All language is contextual. Words can't refer to themselves

[Anonymous No.24060085]

>>24059998
bro...

[Anonymous No.24060086]

>>24059998
Your post is brimming with references to things nobody understands. The onus is not on the critic to magically know what is going through the head of the philosopher. Your complaint should rather be that your given philosophers fail to effectively communicate their message, their context, just as you have here.

[Anonymous No.24060122]

>>24060086
I'm pre supposing a certain level of verbal familiarity because I'm on a literature board that discusses such topics frequently! And my criticism of these philosophers isnt based on a problem with how they convey their ideas, it's based on their swiftness in declaring statements and arguments as true/false whilst presupposing a fixed ontology, and not identifying that the declarations of truth they make are specific to the metaphysical category them and the argument operate within. Truth statements can only be made with respect to a variable context. Hence why science can't answer whether god is real or subjective phenomena for example, because it is relegated to and works exclusively within the structure of the material world and the scope of these question transcend the material category

[Anonymous No.24060128]

>>24060085
hegel cultists linking the charlatan without actually discussing his ideas

[Anonymous No.24060129]

>>24060074
Why does language being relational imply that a relationship can't refer to and be isomorphic to another relationship?

[Anonymous No.24060131]

>>24060129
the world isn't a relationship. the world is a single entity. the "relationship" between elements of the world is merely the relationship between the words that signify the world. division has unity as the ground.

[Anonymous No.24060135]

>>24060042
I'm not questioning the validity of the scientific method but philosophical illiteracy is a recurring problem in scientific institutions that introductory "philosophy of science" classes aren't going to be effective in addressing because it's not in such institutions or bodies of powers' interests to do so

[Anonymous No.24060144]

>>24060131
This is lame and anti philosophical. There is no unity and no change on the level of ultimate reality (the primary set), yes (parmenides and Śankara were correct mostly) but that doesn't mean you cant describe the manifestations of this unity into our phenomenological multiplicity in terms of object relations. A "sign" and object-abstraction is still real, just less real than the unity (the primary) from which it is abstracted. Signs and representations are still structures that carry energy by virtue of being objects of awareness. You are doing the same as what I described in my original post, just the inverse. You are taking a fact about a transcendent category and using it to refute a statement that concerns its sub-categories. Yeah their rules aren't reciprocal. What is true of the infinite isnt true of the finite

[Anonymous No.24060152]

>>24060144
>anti philosophical
that's correct, I hate philosophy
>no change on the level of ultimate reality
the world is a single living organism that is in a constant state of change, there is nothing unchanging. the idea of something unchanging is a construct of words
> A "sign" and object-abstraction is still real
indeed, words are real as they are just an expression of life
> just less real than
no, they're not less real, it's just wrong to say that they are "isomorphic" to reality because in addition to words reality also includes things that have no verbal structure
>What is true of the infinite isnt true of the finite
don't use words like "infinite" and "finite", they have no meaning except mathematically

[Anonymous No.24060160]

>>24060152
Isomorphism denotes a similar underlying structure, not two things being identical.
>there's no difference but,
>world is constantly changing (change inherently implies difference on a temporal axis)
>signs are real as an expression

So how can the world be a unified structure as you have described yet still contain these properties? You conflate the properties of samsara/the dialectical unfolding with pure, unchanging being

[Anonymous No.24060161]

>>24060016
>mathematics has a monopoly on explaining words
Explain.

[Anonymous No.24060171]

>>24060161
OP here, I think this is defensible but I dont think this has anything to do with my original point, that pure logic as an independent field of philosophy is completely vapid. logical terminology is useful in describing conceptual relationships in both philosophy and maths and maths, not dealing with natural language, has a greater scope with which to apply logic and generate new logical terminology

[Anonymous No.24060188]

>>24060160
>Isomorphism denotes a similar underlying structure, not two things being identical.
in mathematics "isomorphism" indeed means they have identical structure and only how you denote or construct the objects are different. but the world doesn't have verbal structure at all, and it's in fact meaningless to speak of an "isomorphism" between the world and words because the world is not something that you construct or define
>So how can the world be a unified structure as you have described yet still contain these properties? You conflate the properties of samsara/the dialectical unfolding with pure, unchanging being
The world is fundamentally a multiplicity. It's also fundamentally a unity. the world is a collection of representations, representations represent other representations. the world is a unity because there is no representation that isn't a representation of something that represents it. it's a multiplicity because the term "the world" just stands for the unity behind the multiplicity of representations. time is real because all representations that don't use time are nevertheless affected by time due to the unity of the world. thus even representations that don't represent time and appear to be outside of time are also changing because, although they themselves have no knowledge of time, they are representations of things that do have knowledge of time. words are real because they affect that which has no verbal structure. but that with no verbal structure also exists

[Anonymous No.24060254]

>>24060188
You're onto something here and definitely maintain this line of thinking but try writing this down more and organising what you are describing cohesively

[Anonymous No.24060310]

>>24060129
Words are not self explanatory. You need words to define words

[Anonymous No.24060397]

china figured this out 3000 years ago

[Anonymous No.24061010]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/17382099