Dear Folks,
Seems I've read somewhere that the rules of logic are in some way truth
preserving. I suppose this mean that these rules allow us to follow the
various ways true statements can be combined to form additional true
statements. Which for me makes logic very close to a form of truth
presevering syntax. But the trouble is most disagreements involve not
merely syntax but semantics. Ultimately the debate hinges on what one means
by the terms that traditional logicians assume preserve their meaning no
matter their syntactical context.
If meaning is related to conceivable consequences we need to ask what the
term "consequence" means. Seems to me a conceivable consequence is not
merely what follows but what results what follows has upon the conceiveable
present actions of whoever or whatever is conceiving those consequences.
The logic of disagreement is that every POV has its own interests and thus
its own personal meanings even though these are tied to the common interests
and meanings of other POVs. IOWs every POV is to some extent unique as well
as sharing something in common with other POVs. Meaning is to some extent
tied to one's POV and personal interests. Despite logicians attempts to
dismiss this as an ad hominen fallacy.
The conceivable consequences of a given event are not necessarily the same
for all those affected. In my view, meaning is not something that is fully
independent of context or one's POV as some logicians seem to suppose. It
seems to me that almost all lasting disagreements are the result not of
faulty logic on the part of one or another of the parties involved but of a
difference in meaning attached to issues being debated. The solution to
such semantic disagreements is to find a meaning in common. This is called
a common understanding and (in my opinion) almost always leads to agreement
about the points being contested.
So I take discusions (even heated ones) involving attempts to seek a common
definition of terms to be a good thing and generally much more productive
than most debates about the logic of one another's position. In my view a
common definition ultimately depends upon a common POV or shared interest.
To me conflict resolution is more about finding common ground than about
attempting to deny the legitimacy of another's POV on the basis of some
supposed logical inconsistancy.
Which is finally to say that I admire both Ben and Jean-Marc and the
discussion they are having (as well as Joe's attempts to keep it from
getting overheated and de-railed).
Best to all,
Jim Piat
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
