by Gil Skillman
Charles Brown wrote:
> by Devine, James
>
> Charles writes:
>
>>The funny thing is dialectics is logic. So, it is a way of talking
about
> things. Formal logic is a linguistic project.
To which Ravi responds:
i am not sure who wrote what, but addressing the above: i would submit
that formal logic is a mathematical project, not a linguistic one
(even
wittgenstein might agree). fwiw, i agree with most of the rest of
charles' summation of logic.
For an in-depth defense and exploration of the idea that logic is grounded
in mathematics rather than vice-versa, see G. Spencer-Brown's classic LAWS
OF FORM. His argument rebuts the notion that formal logic is "a linguistic
project": Spencer-Brown's argument is that, given any consistent
distinction (and thus any specific linguistic structure), and two rules,
(essentially): 1) "a double affirmative is equivalent to an affirmative (
Is is = is)" and 2) "a double negative is equivalent to an affirmative (
Not not = is)", then certain results unavoidably follow, *whatever* the
distinction or linguistic structure you begin with.
Gil
^^^^^
CB: I want to go dialectical on y'all and say logic is mathematical and
linguistic, but I am curious on the essential distinction between
linguistics and mathematics implied here.
As a coincidental side note, I have been trying to teach some math to my
son, and I just decided to focus on word definitions. So, "mathematics is
linguistic" is another proposition :>)
Anyway, I wonder if the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation is
not an empirical generalization, but a statement of a theoretical conclusion
or something. One of the earlier posts raised this.
But, maybe if it is empirical and secular, it is intended to be "monotonic",
as Waistline compared it to the law of gravity. Focus on this might draw
attention away from the issue of crisis cycles. Capitalism is continuously (
secularly) creating poverty, not just cyclically.
