Uncovering Illusions

its been awhile

2011-02-28T20:20:00.003-05:00

But I thought I would say something, even though it is not very philosophical, especially since each day I feel like I forget more and more of what I learned at BYU.

The other day Brian, Leisa, and I (and my Dad...I guess) were playing a game that Brian had come up with called "nims" (nyms? I forget). In the game you come up with homonyms and other types of "nims" for words. For example, if you pick a card that says "days" you could say "daze" (I'm not really sure what all the "nyms" are, but I that's how the game goes). Well, we got into a discussion about "french" and whether "french bread" or "french toast" could be different meanings of the word "french". I argued that they couldn't, though I wasn't quite satisfied with my arguments at the time and I think neither Brian nor Leisa were either. I want to improve upon one argument that I made.

I made a mistaken reference to something we talked about in my philosophy of language class at BYU. We talked about how a name of a thing sticks with that thing even though the name of the thing doesn't necessarily stick with that thing. For example, Dartmouth is the name of a city. If that city was originally named Dartmouth because it was a city located at the mouth of the Dart river, then when you said Dartmouth, you would know where it was located. However, lets say the mouth of the Dart river moves, but the city Dartmouth stays there. Can the city still be called Dartmouth? Of course, because the word "Dartmouth" refers to the city after it got named such, rather to simply the mouth of the Dart river.

In our discussion I talked myself into a corner by admitting that yes, french toast originated from France (or at least that is what my friend who served his mission there said: only that the French use old stale breach rather than Texas Toast, and they probably don't use maple syrup). So, thus although the french toast that we eat in the US probably has very little resemblance to what they eat in France, it did actually come from France, and thus could be another meaning of "french".

However, I think the example works in my favor. You see, in my example "Dartmouth" refers to the city, even though it currently has nothing to do with the mouth of the Dart because it is not located on the mouth of the Dart. The mouth of the Dart has moved elsewhere. So therefore "Dartmouth" doesn't have anything to do with the city at mouth of the Dart anymore, but simply refers to the city Dartmouth. In other words, the reasons why a thing (referent?) was given its name no longer matters (for the purposes of our game, but probably for a lot of other things as well). French toast now has nothing to do with France. It now simply refers to white bread dipped in a mixture of egg and milk (and hopefully some cinnamon) and then fried and covered with butter and syrup, usually eaten for breakfast.

So, no, I don't think that french toast is a "nim" of "french".

Not sure when somebody will actually read this, but when you do, let me know if I got this right. And forgive the typos, as I wrote this in one draft, since I should actually be working on a paper....

2008-02-28T15:30:00.004-05:00

Is Plato coming out of the cave? And that P in the background is backwards. I'm wondering if that backwards P is a manifestation of the Form of P, and if it is, how much of that Form is it a part of? Could it really be a part of it, if it is backwards? And is there a Form for Forms? Is there a Form of all Forms? Do I have a Form?

Sample illistrations

2008-02-26T00:42:00.002-05:00

So, I am all done with the poems. I wanted to give you all a taste of the illustrations. I have 10 more to do.

(G. Liebniz)

Another jump start - PhilosophABCs

2008-02-10T00:26:00.000-05:00

So, to try to get things rolling again, I will post the first batch of my up and coming colection of philosophical poems entitled "PhilosophABC's". I have 13 out of 26 done. I have another half dozen or so that are almost done, and the rest will require some more research to reaquaint myself with various philosophers and their major ideas. But here are the first three:

A.

Aristotle starts with A
A rational animal with plenty to say,
From Plato he made a total reversal
On what is particular and what’s universal
Five elements, Four causes, and one Academy
Teaching ethics, physics, logic and anatomy,
We still use his system of classification,
And he taught that in all things there be moderation.

B.

B is for Berkeley,
Pronounced like “bark”
In the realm of ontology
Where he made his mark
Beyond what our senses
Can see, hear and feel,
He said that ideas
Are what’s really real.

C.

C is for Cartesian
As in Rene DesCartes,
The Enlightenment Parisian
Renown for being smart,
While meditating in his room,
He doubted things once thought assumed,
He grabbed his ink, and then his plume,
And said “cogito ergo sum*”

(*For those who may not understand, that means I think therefore I am.)

More to come

Best Possible World

2007-10-30T20:47:00.000-04:00

I'm re-reading Leibniz's Monadology right now and re-thinking about the role some of his principles and concepts have in explaining or illuminating some doctrinal principles. Of course, this is upon interpretation, so please discuss or argue regarding this.

Basically, the concept of a pre-established harmony and the best possible world. I see these as excellent solutions to problem of evil dilemmas and principles to grasp the possibility of omniscience. The problem is how prophesies can direct toward an individual who will apostatize or act in some evil. Assuming that for the plan to be just, every person must have the opportunity for exaltation. There appears to be a contradiction: Person X is prophesied to not receive exaltation, and Person X is required to have the opportunity for exaltation. Now, granted that depending on the interpretation of what it means to be prophesied, the role of knowledge on action, the power of the interaction between personality and situation to derive an outcome, and so on--this might not be an exact contradiction. But, at a simple level: assuming God is omniscient and He placed person X in the place to fulfill the negative prophesy, there appears to be a contradiction. Unless, the place where God put person X was the best possible place for that individual. In other words, the individual by spiritual or natural disposition (or whatever else) would bring upon him or herself the same outcome in every possible situation, but of those possible worlds--God placed person X in the optimal situation for that person, despite the outcome being a fulfillment of a negative prophesy. Hence, the best possible world may have a role in explaining or illuminating doctrine regarding agency, prophesy, and God's omniscience. (On another note, I don't agree with pre-established harmony, but maybe later for that.)

Also, I realize my argument is rough, I'm working at ironing it out and making it more clear, but I figure, it might be better to post and discuss than just hammering at it in my head.

2007-10-24T11:25:00.001-04:00

Leibniz, a favorite

2007-10-23T22:47:00.000-04:00

It's sad that I haven't checked this blog for some time. However, I will be sure to check it more frequently. Brian, Leibniz is my favorite philosopher. Without checking notes or textbook (I'm going to look at these more tomorrow (and I'll probably add or change what I am saying now)), some of his contributions have been 1) Monadology, 2) Best possible world (of course, this does link with the monadology), 3) calculus, 4) attempt to establish a perfect language. Spinoza was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher who argued for a pantheistic concept, but I can't get my thoughts concrete enough to make a bullet point. Interestingly, H. G. Well's book World of the Wars demonstrates a Spinozian atonement (I realized this as I watched the movie and did some research to verify that this theory is plausible, and it is. H. G. Well's new Spinoza and his theories..., now to read that book some time soon). Voltaire was Leibniz's nemesis. His Candide is a refutation and satire of Leibniz's philosophy. Hobbes' argued for man's natural state to be a base nature, and I believe he had something to do with the social contract. Well, ultimately, I know what I'll be reading on the train to work tomorrow. On another note, I argue that Leibniz's best possible world offers valuable insight into man's relation to God and God's omniscience (but that's for another time).

On the note of Atlas Shrugged, I am reading Dostoevsky's Devils right now, and he offers some interesting refutations to Ayn Rand's philosophy; however, I need to finish this book before I speak too soon. Perhaps, when the Atlas Shrugged discussion begins, I'll be done with it.

12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

2007-10-23T16:18:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Brian for posting after a long silence. As far as those philosophers go, I know very little. I always get Liebniz and Spinoza mixed up. I know that Spinoza lived in Holland, but his parents were Jews from Portugal. I know that one of them did a lot of logic stuff and tried to prove God's existence with it. I know the Hobbes was Enligsh and his big work was the Leviathan, which I think is all about politics. He has a theory about where we get our morality from, stuff like giving up out rights to the sovereign because he protects us. At least that is what I can get right now. All I know about Voltaire is that he is French and did politics. Good luck with them. I would be more interested in Spinoza and Liebniz than the other two, so if you find anything cool out, let me know.

As far as philosophical thoughts that I have had recently, you could probably guess that they mostly have to do with the law. My favorite class right now is my criminal law class. Brian I know you mentioned once that you have libertarian leanings, which I think means that you think that we should stick to the constitution pretty strictly or something? Well, I think I was going to try and say something smart about laws, but my thoughts are too jumbled. Maybe next time.

Instead, I had a funny ethical problem the other day. I was walking on campus here, in a part where not a lot of people walk, and I saw a $20 bill crumpled up on the ground. I was shocked. I picked it up and all of the hypothetical ethical situations came to my mind that we talked about in my phil classes at BYU. I thought about the categorical imperative, I thought about different types of duty, I thought about the utility of my actions, I thought about what the average greek man would do (a la Aristotle), then I looked around, saw that nobody was coming to claim it, put it in my pocket and walked away.

I could go into all the justifications that went through my head, there were many, but I think that the choice I made was fine. I mean, maybe it was even the best decision to make. It will make for some nice ice cream.

Monads?

2007-10-10T19:23:00.000-04:00

So I am sorry that I apparently killed the conversation. It has been a long while since anyone posted, so I figured I should say something.

To kick things off, I am working on a little fun project in which I need a quick summary of some of the philosophical ideas of a few thinkers that I never really studied. Without going into wikipedia, what would you say are the 3 major contributions of:
1. Liebniz
2. Hobbes
3. Spinoza
4.Voltaire

Summaries or bullet points will do.

-Brian

PS, I am in the middle of Atlas Shrugged, and am excited to get into some discussions about it when I am done.

A little philosophy humor

2007-06-09T01:09:00.000-04:00

last thought and new topic(s)

2007-06-05T21:23:00.000-04:00

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.

Time

2007-06-04T14:42:00.001-04:00

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.

Paradoxes and the Natural Man

2007-05-23T10:13:00.000-04:00

A preview of things to come (when I have another second):

I think I agree with Strawson when he said (in "On Referring"): "Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression in ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic."

logic and life

2007-05-22T11:32:00.000-04:00

In light of logic and the scriptures, I recall Dr. Carter (BYU logic professor) saying that The Book of Mormon authors used a different logic system than what we studied in class. Sam or Brian, do you recall something like this? I haven't heard or read anything else on this. However, I have spent some time diverting myself during a boring Sunday school lesson by translating the prophetic logic arguments into truth-functional or quantificational logic symbolic form. Then, I would either play with the proof or make truth-table to test its validity.

I agree with Brian. Set-theory, to me also, is the closest we have to how people reason. A few months ago, I read an article in some cognitive science periodical about natural set-theory. The author argued that while the ZF-Set-theory is great for mathematics, set-theory needed some modifications to better approximate how people reason. He proceeded to propose some new rules and definitions (but I can't remember them all, I'll have to go find that article).

While in formal logic we have a clear distinction between validity and soundness, I don't believe most people realize the difference between the structure of the argument (validity) and the argument's relation to reality (soundness). In normal language, people also see different logic connectors different. How many people see a disjunction as having the possibility of both disjuncts being true? Most people, I believe see is it as one or the other, but not both. Conditionals can throw people through similar loops. So often, people don't know what to do if the antecedent is false and the consequent is true; if a person does have a reply, then there is a good chance that the person will say the truth-value is false. Were the statement to be a bicondition, this would be right. Perhaps, people see exclusive-disjunctions and bi-conditionals rather than inclusive-disjunctions and conditionals.

Within all of this, I think another interesting question comes out: While Socrates saw a careful evaluation of life (through a logical dialectic) as fundamental to living well, and Plato asserted a logical ascension is necessary to reach the good, what is the purpose of logic in an everyday person's life? (Please note, I am a fan of looking for fallacies (ask Lindsay).) Outside of mathematical and philosophical discussion, does formal/symbollic logic have a role? Are we better knowing probabilities, heuristics, and inductive logic in these situations?

Logic, the Gospel and Wikis

2007-05-19T22:47:00.000-04:00

I don't know what I'm talking about. You are all the philosophers... I am but a pathetic wanna-be engineer stuck in the Clyde. Except for propositional & predicate calculus - which are not much more than a bunch of 1s and 0s anded and ored together.

I really don't know much about the difference between classic logic and Aristotle's logic... so I can't comment much. I would think that human reasoning is based off of propositional and predicate calculus and discrete math in general. I mean, our thoughts are a bunch of statements that eventually lead to a conclusion, right? But then, I have a simple mind and may not know enough to reason a very good comment. This is true. I mean... false. No, true! Or false?

You know what would be neat? We should see if we can tie any of this stuff to the gospel. How's 2nd Nephi 2:13 for a logical argument? Or, Alma 42:16-22 (or all of 42 for that matter). I guess these examples might not follow with the current topic very well (because I still don't reason it)... But still, I'd like to see ties to the gospel in comments. I think it'd be neat (since truth is found there also).

As for the wiki idea (or forum)... I think it makes a lot of sense. I mean, the conversations will probably be divided into separate topics and might be better displayed as such (separated). But then, it's also neat to see a stream line conversation published in the blog. I think it'd probably be a good idea to stick to the blog for now since blogger is easy to use, others are used to it, and a wiki site isn't immediately available (but can be created in the nearer than later future). Cool idea though - wikis are the future. A read and writable internets.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
-John Adams

is this the best way to do this?

2007-05-18T20:20:00.000-04:00

I think we may want to get tyler to whip up some sort of wiki or sql type system so we can have different threads going on. I don't really know what would be best, I'm just a little concerned about protocol, ettiquette, etc.

As for the logic question, I think that Kant would certainly say that the rules of logic are intrinsic to the sense manifold that filters our experience into the categories. Not that I'm a hard core Kantian, but the notion always resounded with me. I think that the linguistic underpinnings of logic are certainly somewhere in the way our brains are wired, but as Blake suggested, logic is more closely related to mathematics, which, to me, seems less intuitive and innate to the human condition.

I think that maybe, Frege Logic (with set theory and such) is what we as humans havw thus far been able to develop that most closely approximates some sort of true (Platonic if you will) logic that would actually resemble how our brains process information.

preliminary unsorted thoughts on logic

2007-05-17T22:20:00.000-04:00

Sam, I like this topic (a lot). However before I say something, I need to sort my ideas out. There is a whole discipline of psychology devoted to this question (psychology of reasoning); however, I believe that many times they miss the point of logic. Logic is the study of structure, and most of psychology does not look at structure. In other words, I think that psychology of reasoning does well at observing manifestations of reasoning, but they have not reached the core of reasoning. Because they have not reached the core of reasoning, there are three disputing schools of thought within psychology, and each can argue their view with significant empirical evidence, as well as discount the others. (I said that I would sort my thoughts out and obviously I became too anxious; I'm still going to sort my thoughts.)

Currently, I am at a lost. I want to say "yes," but I can't. Classic logic though powerful in forming mathematical foundations, appears limiting in the world that involves possibles and necessaries, deontics (should and oughts), and other modals. However, are those washed out, weak, or misinterpreted quantifiers? If logic forms a foundation for mathematics through quantificational logic and set-theory, and mathematics is the ground physics rests, then could it also be the correct grounding of human reasoning? I need to get to bed (i.e., sort out my thoughts before I say more).

Logic

2007-05-17T19:04:00.000-04:00

How about this for a topic: does classic logic (not Aristotle's (syllogistic), I'm talking Frege/Russell: modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism, etc) truly capture the way that humans reason? Another question might be: does it capture the way we ought to reason (is it even more fundamental than human reason (lots of people don't seem to get disjunctive syllogism, or don't believe in it))? I'm at work and will opine later, but thought it might be something to get us going.

Philosophers and Engineers

2007-05-17T17:18:00.000-04:00

Speaking of engineers, there would hardly be any if it weren't for the philosophers first. Where would the computers we're surfing be if it weren't for Descarte, Leibniz, or Turing (and many others)?

As the inventor of the Cartesian coordinate system, Descartes founded analytic geometry, that bridge between algebra and geometry crucial to the invention of calculus and analysis. Descartes's reflections on mind and mechanism began the strain of western thought that much later, impelled by the invention of the electronic computer and by the possibility of machine intelligence, blossomed into, e.g., the Turing test.
- Wikipedia

It's fun to be a part of the blog. What are we going to talk about? Anyone have a topic?

a gathering of Wiest philosophers

2007-05-17T16:58:00.000-04:00

Indubitably, there is an abnormal quantity of philosophers in this family. At least, I think there are. Hence, it is only appropriate that we have a place to convene and discuss. The exciting part is that we each can approach the discussion with diverse backgrounds and directions. Sam, Brian, and myself have a core philosophy background, but each of us have or are pursuing different directions after the graduation. Brian went to business, Sam to law, and myself to cognitive psychology. Leisa has an immensely related field of study in comparative literature. Tyler with a self-motivated passion for philosophy from an electrical engineering background. I say we just start and carry on conversations, debates, or thoughts as they come.