Saturday, June 9, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
last thought and new topic(s)
I'm going to quickly throw in my last two cents on logic and thought. I think an important part is that the human mind is capable of learning logic. This is something that has frustrated me with psychology; many times they study how the human mind is in its "most natural" setting, but they do not look enough at its capabilities. While people might not talk or think according any logic system, people are capable of learning logic systems and confining their minds and language to the system's rules.
On a different note, how about a new topic. My mind is slightly scattered right now, but here are some thoughts on the top of my head. We could discuss the different meanings of snakes or serpents in scriptures and literature. I realize this is not technically a philosophical topic, but it could be interesting. Perhaps this fits in the comparative literature category. I have always been fascinated with the fact that the lifted brazen serpent is symbolic of Christ and the atonement, and yet, the serpent is also a symbol of the devil. Why? Then, there is the abstract serpent in The Little Prince, which offers another meaning. The serpent appears to represent two extremes.
Another fun topic could be a discussion on how far is it right to interpret or place intention on a writer. In other words, with philosophy, poetry, and literature, people so frequently argue that a writer intended some meaning or other that may not be explicit. I've heard people argue that we should not even try to interpret beyond obvious meaning the writer intended (I find this boring), and others argue that we can interpret as much as the text will permit.
With Ayn Rand, what are the similarities and differences between the United Order, the 21st Century Motor Factor order, and John Galt's valley order?
Should we consider states of the mind as states or acts?
Is there a proof or argument for an objective truth? A truth beyond accepted social constructs?
I'll stop there. I think I'm going to think about something for the final question. Of course, I accept that there is an objective truth, but is there are proof for it. Of course, I am open to any other debate, too.
On a different note, how about a new topic. My mind is slightly scattered right now, but here are some thoughts on the top of my head. We could discuss the different meanings of snakes or serpents in scriptures and literature. I realize this is not technically a philosophical topic, but it could be interesting. Perhaps this fits in the comparative literature category. I have always been fascinated with the fact that the lifted brazen serpent is symbolic of Christ and the atonement, and yet, the serpent is also a symbol of the devil. Why? Then, there is the abstract serpent in The Little Prince, which offers another meaning. The serpent appears to represent two extremes.
Another fun topic could be a discussion on how far is it right to interpret or place intention on a writer. In other words, with philosophy, poetry, and literature, people so frequently argue that a writer intended some meaning or other that may not be explicit. I've heard people argue that we should not even try to interpret beyond obvious meaning the writer intended (I find this boring), and others argue that we can interpret as much as the text will permit.
With Ayn Rand, what are the similarities and differences between the United Order, the 21st Century Motor Factor order, and John Galt's valley order?
Should we consider states of the mind as states or acts?
Is there a proof or argument for an objective truth? A truth beyond accepted social constructs?
I'll stop there. I think I'm going to think about something for the final question. Of course, I accept that there is an objective truth, but is there are proof for it. Of course, I am open to any other debate, too.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Time
It is time for something new, at least a new post. I don't know if I am excited enough to write something about logic any more. I don't think language has an exact logic, and...human thought might have some type of most basic logic, and I think that Frege/Russell logic comes pretty close to that. I think when you start adding different variables (modal logic, cognitive logic, second-order logic) that things become too big and crazy for them to truly represent basic reasoning.
As far as mathematics finding its roots in logic, I am pretty skeptical. I think numbers exist, just as modus ponens does, but I don't think that numbers come from modus ponens. Logic+set theory creates problems that I don't know, at least I haven't been told in the 4 logic classes that I have had, how the problems with set theory can be resolved. Ok, I better get back to work now. I wasn't planning on talking about logic, but I did. I promise something else next time.
As far as mathematics finding its roots in logic, I am pretty skeptical. I think numbers exist, just as modus ponens does, but I don't think that numbers come from modus ponens. Logic+set theory creates problems that I don't know, at least I haven't been told in the 4 logic classes that I have had, how the problems with set theory can be resolved. Ok, I better get back to work now. I wasn't planning on talking about logic, but I did. I promise something else next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)