To speak of good as prior to logic is perhaps wrong. I claim logic is good.
Good is only prior to logic in the sense that it represents what
metaphysics used to see as the end of things. I see dualisms as eliminated
by triadic thought. So, for example, metaphysics and logic coexist
triadically. Deridda was not shy about saying our century requires the
unprecedented to avoid repeating the past. Everyone is metaphysical I
sense. Reality is all. Good being prior to logic in that context probably
does deserve a no!

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:05 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:

> Jerry, Stephen, and Helmut,
>
> In his later philosophy, Wittgenstein defined a natural language
> as the totality of all the language games that can be played with
> a given syntax and vocabulary.
>
> He did not state that point in those terms because he died several
> years before Chomsky made an outrageous and hopelessly misguided
> claim:  A natural language is the totality of all the grammatical
> sentences that can be expressed with a given syntax and vocabulary.
>
> If Wittgenstein had heard that claim, he would have been livid with
> rage.  I believe that the linguist Michael Halliday, whose career
> spans the same extent as Chomsky's, had a much more accurate view:
> http://jfsowa.com/pubs/halliday.pdf )
>
> JFS:  every artificial language, which includes all the artificial
>>> notations of mathematics, logic, chemistry, computer programming...
>>>
>>
>> JLRC: I find this phrase to be very confusing, John.  In today’s
>> terminology, Symbol systems are not the same as “artificial notations”,
>> but most formal notations are artificial symbols created by humans to
>> express human thought or intent or meaning.
>>
>
> Every symbol system or formal notation begins as a language game
> that the developers or designers use to discuss the subject matter
> among themselves.  When designing that notation, they discuss every
> definition in some NL, and they use exactly the same definitions
> for the corresponding words in their preferred NL.
>
> JRLC
>
>> Secondly, a critical distinction is whether or not the terms originate
>> within a discipline and flow into the spoken language with time, or
>> incorporated into a different technical language or otherwise.
>> A PARTICULARLY INTERESTING CASE IS “DNA”.
>>
>
> DNA is an excellent example. The language game *originated* with the
> first use of the term 'desoxyribonucleic acid' and its abbreviation.
> The scientists who study DNA and talk with their colleagues about it
> express every word, symbol, and phrase in their preferred NL with
> exactly the same precision as they do when they use the symbols and
> notations of chemistry.
>
> Very few authors choose to use common spoken language formally.
>>
>
> There is no such thing as "common spoken language".  Every sentence
> anybody says from infancy to death is in some language game, which is
> as vague or precise as appropriate for their purpose at the moment.
>
> It's true that people who don't understand the science may pick up
> and repeat parts of the scientists' precise language game and use it
> in very loose analogies.  I believe that's what you mean by "flow
> into the spoken language with time".  But the scientists themselves
> still talk about DNA with exactly the same precision as ever.
>
> JLRC
>
>> Units must be defined!  The meaning of the “+” sign / symbol varies
>> with the purpose of author and the logical notation (sybol system)
>> the author is communicating with.
>>
>
> Yes.  When precision is required for some language game, the speakers
> express exactly the same precision in their NL and in other notations.
> And the symbol '+' varies with different language games for different
> kinds of numbers.  See Figure 2 of "What is the source of fuzziness?":
> http://jfsowa.com/pubs/fuzzy.pdf
>
> SCR
>
>> Logic is in my view good...  Words are a sort of utility by which we
>> can perform everything from mundane to exalted feats. But to give them
>> more than their due is an error.
>>
>
> When a logician, mathematician, or scientist in any field uses special
> symbols in any formal notation, those symbols have *exactly* the same
> meaning as the NL words that they use in talking with their colleagues
> or students when they're explaining those symbols.
>
> SCR
>
>> Logic is definitely prior to words through words are the instruments
>> for expressing it.
>>
>
> No!  Every version of logic or any other artificial notation is
> nothing more nor less than some NL language game expressed in
> a notation that is specially designed just for that purpose.
>
> HR
>
>> graphs, as most mathematic symbol language too, does not symbolize
>> time (continuity)? But: Might it not be possible to do that, by
>> inventing symbols for time and its flow?
>>
>
> Scientists use the symbol 't' and predicates spelled T-I-M-E in
> mathematics.  They also use equivalent words when they talk about
> the same subjects in their preferred NLs.
>
> But the discrete words and symbols of any language, natural or
> artificial, can't express the full continuity of their experience.
> A photograph or movie is better.  And systems of virtual reality
> are even better.  But nothing expresses the full continuity.
>
> HR
>
>> What is the "natural language"? Chomsky´s "universal grammar"?
>> Is it the same as logic?
>>
>
> According to my interpretation of Peirce and Wittgenstein, I would
> say that all our language experience, from infancy on up, involves
> learning language games for expressing our perceptions and actions.
>
> But language is not the same as logic.  It's more accurate to say
> that every version of logic, from Aristotle to the present, is
> a special-purpose notation for some language game.
>
> The primary advantage of using some logic notation is that many errors
> can be detected just by checking the syntax.  But syntactic checks
> alone cannot prevent all errors in semantics and pragmatics.
>
> John
>
>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to