John, my reply to Jerry sort of thoughts on the idea of two logics. Unfortunately, I replied first to Jerry and managed to lose your note to which I was going to reply. I have been online forever but have no idea what happened.
Here is a bit that may explain what I am about. Reality is all. All is the case. The world is a case. A case is a sign. + Facts are claims as well as true. Things are what they are. Ultimately, what is good is what is true. + Sometime is time to come. Future is here in The world is determined as we go. Things change and remain the same. + There is no end to all. Continuity and movement reign. Days are units of progress. + The case is what is true. The totality is true and false – ambient but moving toward truth. Totality is an aggregate within the all which is mixed, depending on the disposition of choices. Our world is where we are in reality. + Logic tends toward good. The world tends toward good. + The world is not divided by any mental gyration. The world is what it is. + Everything is in and beyond us. As is mystery. As is knowing and not knowing. No one has a final answer. Most mystery we cannot fathom. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:00 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Edwina and Stephen, > > ET > >> what's the difference between a 'language game' and >> a 'grammatical sentence'? >> > > A sentence is just one move in a language game. > > For more about Wittgenstein's language games and their relationship > to logic and computer programs, see the article "Language Games, > Natural and Artificial": http://jfsowa.com/pubs/lgames.pdf > > See page 3 of lgames.pdf, which quotes some examples of language > games from his later book _Logical Investigations_. > > And by the way, Wittgenstein's original term was 'Sprachspiel'. > The word 'Spiel' in German is somewhat broader than the English > 'game'. It would include noncompetitive play as well as games > that involve competition. > > It's closer to Peirce's word 'musement', which he defined as > "pure play": http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/musement > > SCR > >> I claim logic is good. >> > > Oh. Now I realize that you were talking about logic as one of > the normative sciences, since it defines the criteria for truth. > > But note that Peirce classifies logic in two places. Formal logic > is a subset of mathematics, which is prior to all versions of > philosophy. But logic is also one of the normative sciences. > As such, it depends on mathematics, phenomenology, and the two > prior normative sciences, aesthetics and ethics. > > When I said that NLs are prior to logic, I meant that as a > historical observation: All versions of formal logic have > been designed as disciplined subsets of natural languages. > > I was talking about language and logic as semiotic systems. > In that sense, Peirce discussed logic in the broad sense as the > study of criteria of truth for any system of signs, which include > natural languages as well as all kinds of notations and diagrams. > > Formal logics are rigidly disciplined versions of logic. That > makes them useful for enabling precise definitions of the rules > of inference, which preserve truth. > > Peirce also said that discipline is purely negative. It puts > constraints on what can be said. By itself, formal logic is > a deductive system that cannot find or create anything new. > > To introduce anything new, you need the methods of induction > (generalization from particular instances) and abduction > (forming hypotheses by guessing or phenomenological insight). > Neither method is guaranteed to preserve truth. > > If you introduce new axioms by induction and abduction, > they must be tested by an unending cycle of deduction and > further observation. But you can never be certain that the > cycle has finally converged to absolute truth. > > 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 .
