Well you can't say what it means — Leontiskos

I set out the meaning of the liar's here:

I'd say that just from a plain language sense "This sentence is false" is clear to a point that it can't be clarified further. "This sentence" is a pronoun being used to refer to the entire phrase which the pronoun is a part of. "... is false" is the sort of predicate we apply to statements.

"...is false" is the predicate which yields the value "true" for sentences which are false in a truth-functional sense — Moliere

The objection was given <here>. You tried to answer it by redefining "false" as "fake," and I think we both agreed that that answer failed. That's where things stand, as you never made another attempt. — Leontiskos

What I said was

"Duck is false" and "2+3+4+5 is false" don't work because "Duck" and "2+3+4+5" are not assertions at all, but nouns. — Moliere

It's the object that's different which changes the meaning of "...is false", which is why these examples don't work. Since the liar's sentence is a sentence the usual meaning of "...is false" works just fine.

I didn't redefine the predicates but pointed out how your counter-example didn't stick.

Sure: if dialetheism is true, then strong logical pluralism is true. — Leontiskos

Cool. Then it seems that an argument for dialetheism is very much on topic then, and the liar's sentence is what I'm proposing as a dialetheia

No, they don't. This is equivocation. Neither one has anything like the standing contradictions of dialetheism. Tensions which go on to get resolved are nothing like the stable contradictions of dialetheism. — Leontiskos

I disagree. The moment of sublation in either Hegel or Marx is not a singular moment which is separable from their negations, but is rather the composition of negations and the negation of that composition. Without recognizing the unity of the opposites -- contradiction -- sublation wouldn't be recognizable as a distinct moment in the logical process.

Now that may very well be the case in fact, but conceptually speaking it seems you at least have to accept contradictions which are operable in some fashion in the logics of each philosopher -- not two opposing things that happen to yield a third thing, but rather the two opposing things very opposition is connected to this third thing in a relationship of inference, where the contradiction is part of the inference, and is not a reductio.

That's an interesting background explanation for why the "Liar's paradox" tempts you, but what I am hearing is that you are interested in playing a game that has nothing to do with reality. . — Leontiskos

Reality is what's interesting here -- what I don't want to do is define reality within my logic, though. And I don't think that logic needs to restrict itself to objects since reality is not composed of objects and objects only -- it also contains sentences.

You have not answered the objections, and I don't see that Marx and Hegel have much at all to do with this issue

As I see it right now the objection is we don't agree on what a pluralist logic would even mean. I've asked you if you'd accept a defense of dialetheism, the belief that there are true contradictions, as a basis for making the inferences that there is more than one logic.

Unless you answer that question it becomes rather hard to answer your objections since we don't have an agreed upon notion of pluralism. I've already laid out, with the liar's sentence, why I accept dialetheism. Marx and Hegel are philosophers which, like the liar's, utilizes contradiction in their reasoning. My thinking here is to ask if you'd accept that as a basis for dialetheism.

So what do you say?

I believe you've misunderstood, or I've not explained myself clearly. Wherever the fault lies doesn't matter to me.

My thinking is that the mind is not the body. My foot is not my mind. I still have a mind for all that. And when I think about a donut that does not make me the donut. Thus far I believe we agree.

The part I'd point out is that my mind is influenced by whether my foot itches, hurts, etc -- and is even influenced by things like how much sugar or water I presently have in my body. It's much easier to be amiable when I'm feeling pleasure than it is when I'm feeling pain.{

so I conclude that my body and mind, while not being one, are connected.

After that it has to do with stupid theological shit that need not be brought up in this question.

EDIT: I ought say that "stupid theological shit" includes my own atheism and all that.

:heart: :nerd:

I hope to do so :).

Naw. "Mind" and "Identity" are different.

For instance if I'm looking for some keys then my mind is occupied with keys, but I am not the keys.

I wish I could tell you the "because", so I'm sorry for piquing your curiosity here without having an answer.

I'm still interested in the problem of consciousness, and slowly reading Sartre's B&N as an effort to think through the metaphysics of consciousness (cuz Chalmer's kind of just leaves it in the air)

Where's the evidence that the mind is the body? Without assuming that the mind is the body - which is question begging - what evidence is there that the mind is part of the body? — Clearbury

What's evidence to you?

That's probably where disagreement lies, by my guess.

The evidence I'd point to with respect to the mind being a part of the body -- and only a part (my foot is not a mind) -- is that what we normally think of as mind is influenced by physical things. The world feels different when drunk. If I've eaten a big meal that I ought not to have I get feeling tired and want to sleep. Even the smells and sounds of an environment seem to effect my mind. (you need not trust my word on it: fast for several days and you'll see what I'm talking about, if you desire not to utilize these various methods and want to rely upon your body and your body alone for feedback)

When I pay attention to why I'm doing what I do it's hard to rule out that the body does not relate to what we like to call the mind.

I can say, with certainty, that the Moliere posting on the old TPF is not the same person as the new TPF, but at the same time is the same person as the Moliere of the old TPF.

And I can say that I have a body, and have had a body the entire time, and that when my body is gone I believe that I'll be gone too.

So -- going into the transporter may turn me into light and recreate me on the other side, but my folk belief about the metaphysics of consciousness is that the "I" I'm experiencing now would cease to exist.

In that sense then only one person named Moliere has been on TPF, and the old PF. The ship of Theseus still belongs to Theseus -- but not because of the bits we can name.

Could be. Maybe we're uploadable. — frank

Taking this one up in favor of the OP:

If we invented a Transporter in the way Star Trek seems to indicate I would not enter it.

It's science fiction so we can invent whatever: My understanding is that the Transporter converts your physical make-up into "information", and then translates that information into light which can quickly travel to the surface of a planet and re-create you.

But I think the "new you" would behave exactly like you, but the you which experiences things would disappear. It's basically a death machine for convenience, by my guess. (which is only a guess -- this is somewhat a pop-sci explanation of the problem of consciousness in a nutshell)

Blasphemy! — frank

I mean I have a type of thinking I keep going back to and it's often labeled as Blasphemy :D

I, for one, do not trust math.

We may be immortal for all that. (EDIT: And it looks like a cool book that I'd enjoy reading)

M'kay. Then my example would not convince you of dialetheism, and at this point in the debate I'd ask -- if dialetheism were somehow justified would that then justify logical pluralism?

Can you think of any examples of a sentence wherein both A and not-A are true in the same sense or context? For example I could be said to be both old or tall and not old or tall but not in the same senses or contexts. — Janus

The liar's sentence.

"This sentence is false" is the liar's sentence.

This doesn't fit your "for example", though, because it's not about a person, but a sentence.

Since the sentence can be said in any context, and it's basically about words and how we describe them, we can place them within the sense of logic.

The sense of logic can be informal or formal, and insofar as we understand one another well enough it need not be specified.

Though I'm wondering if I've just lost you at this point?

My point was that within any valid logical argument of whatever stripe there must be consistency between the premises and the conclusion. If a premise contradicts another premise or the conclusion then the argument cannot be valid. That sort of thing. — Janus

Your choice of words here has me wondering if I can or not.

But I can give a straightforward answer to your question which may be aside from the point.

Can you explain how dialetheism rules out the LNC? — Janus

Quoting the SEP here:

A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation, ¬A, are true. If falsity is assumed to be the truth of negation, a dialetheia is a sentence which is both true and false.

I've been advancing the argument that the LEM holds -- because there is nothing in between truth and falseness so we cannot choose some in-between or other -- but the liar's sentence is best treated as a dialetheia.

If one accepts that then the LNC cannot hold because the LNC says "A & ¬A" is false. Since ¬A and A, as a dialetheia, are both true and false, together, the LNC is rejected.

However I do remember someone asking whether there were any logical laws that applied to all forms of logic. How about validity and consistency? Or which is basically the same as far as I can tell—the law of non-contradiction? — Janus

I'm a defender of dialetheism, thus far.

Which rules out the LNC.

Hence, the notion of pluralism -- at least so far no one has said that the logics which include the LNC are the same as the logics which exclude the LNC.

Heh. I wouldn't go that far at least. I think @Leontiskos and @Count Timothy von Icarus would want us to come up with a notion of logical monism which is interesting enough for their concerns.

Thus far I've gathered that they both would like to relate to knowledge generation? I think?

This is what motived by earlier response about why the problem is interesting with respect to knowledge generation.

O.

In that case, clearly stipulate-able.

This does not belong in the lounge. This is a paradox that rest on a tricky difference between conditionals in language and conditionals in logic. — hypericin

I wouldn't restrict the lounge like that.

Off topic, but I think the various "wonderings" which are lounge-appropriate can lead to cool and interesting philosophical insights.

It's the creative space where as long as you're not a jerk go ahead -- random ideas, almost connected philosophical thoughts, conversational starting bits -- go for it!

So the philosophy bits do belong here -- I'd say especially because new philosophical thoughts often come from shooting the shit.

Yes, which maybe should make you question if you have any clue what the debate is about. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This comment makes me question if I know what the debate is about.

What's the debate about?

One thing unmentioned that I really like is the "A Very Short Introduction" series of books, as well as the "Introducing" series for similar reasons: They are easy to read and you get a fairly good all-around picture on the subject from someone whose taught it, but in comic book form. What's not to like?! :D

They write them on a number of philosophical, and sometimes other, subjects so I'll just post a link to one of each so you know what to look for if you're interested.

Introducing Descartes
Logic: A Very Short Introduction

:up:

That's a bit beyond me. How does it fail?

What if in place of Kant’s Transcendental categories we substituted normative social practices? Doesn’t that stay true to Kant’s insight concerning the inseparable role of subjectivity in the construction of meaning while avoiding a solipsistic idealism? Don’t we need to think in terms of normative social practices in order to make sense of science? — Joshs

That’s what pragmatist-hermeneutical and poststructural models of practice are for. For Hegel and Marx the dialectic totalizes historical becoming. In these latter models cultural becoming is contextually situated and non-totalizable. — Joshs

Yours has been the hardest to respond to for me. Hence my tardiness.

If we substitute normative social practices for Kant's Transcendental categories, what does that look like? In a very literal sense, which I don't think you mean but this is why I'm asking for clarification, I could substitute a model of practice for quality, quantity, relation, and modality -- substitution seems to need some relation of sameness, if not strict equality, and I'm not sure how practices would work within Kant's categorical frame.

I'd reach more for the ethics, but it becomes even more confusing there lol. So I'm reaching for what's making sense to me right now to respond in kind.

It is normativity all the way down.

How does this claim escape the charge of totalizing?

Hegel's contradiction is pretty far from most paraconsistent logics, given the unity and "development" of opposites. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. I came to the same conclusion, and was disappointed. "Further research needed" :D

I enjoy the phenomenology, but only got 1/2 through the logic and couldn't say I understand it. I could tell it was not time to climb that mountain.

If you're interested though, formalization attempts have run through category theory and Lawvere is the big name here.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://philarchive.org/archive/CORMAA-3v1&ved=2ahUKEwjrxdPIz6CJAxURlIkEHUmyEkcQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3XxnDtBEih45jE5c2zfW2d

Nlab has some stuff on this too.

I have read many commentaries on the Logic at the point. Houlgate and Wallace are my favorites (Wallace isn't quite a commentary, but he does focus on the Logic), but Taylor was useful too. Despite this and now years of effort, I find the essence chapter largely impenetrable lol. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thank you! Next time I feel like trying the Kilimanjaro of philosophy I'll be referencing these ahead of time to prepare.

Like probably everyone on TPF, I have read about paraconsistent logic as I read about animals in a far off land, but I have never worked with it or made use of it. — Leontiskos

My brush with dialethiesm, and thereby paraconsistent logic, came from my studies of the liar's paradox. So for me it's the result of reading arguments about the liar's and thinking dialetheism provided the most satisfactory answer. And actually this might be related since I read you here:

Are you asking me whether I think that accepting both paraconsistent and explosive logic results in the robust kind of logical pluralism? My guess is that I would answer 'no.' Paraconsistency does not entail Dialetheism. And paraconsistent logic is often used informally in everyday life (if that counts). — Leontiskos

First to answer the question, yes that's what I'm after: attempting to define what would count as a robust kind of logical pluralism. Here it seems you indicate that, supposing a defense of dialetheism holds, logical pluralism would count? Rather than paraconsistent logic, just the notion of true contradictions would at least ask for a different kind of logic, even if not paraconsistent, and so we'd be justified in saying there is at least two kinds of logic: the ones which reject contradictions, and the ones which utilize them in some way.

Also I don't mean to say I'm an expert by any means. Just an interested reader who thinks about these things.

I also haven't seen anyone in this thread who favors logical pluralism embrace Dialetheism - other than yourself, of course. They seem to be mostly Augustinians, "Lord, give me logical pluralism, but not yet!"

I also have ulterior reasons for taking dialetheism seriously, namely Marx and Hegel. Marx's notion of contradiction I have a good feel for (but because it's more extensional it's easier to untangle Marx's notion of contradiction from the logical one by dividing wholes into parts that differ), but Hegel's continues to mystify me.

And then one day I came across Priest in reading through the Liar's sentence and as odd as it is on its face it kind of slowly grew on me. I'm not sure of extensions of the dialetheism beyond the liar's, though Priest lists several (also including some Eastern philosophy too), but I think I like dialetheism as a solution the to the liar's paradox because it's a queer conclusion that comes from the plainest understanding of the liar's: no fancy logic is really needed. I can understand thinking the liar's is incoherent -- once upon a time I thought that because it's hard to imagine an empirical use for it-- but since this concerns logic alone, and may provide some inroads to other interests I have, I find it worthwhile in trying to comprehend and use. (Also, I think it could be a promising theory to develop in fleshing out the absurd, which is where I began originally -- taking the absurd as a metaphysics seems to indicate that logic cannot contain reality, especially the absurd parts -- logic's whole thing is making sense!)

The other response to the liar's I held was that the liar's sentence is simply false. It's telling you exactly what it is on its face. there is no evaluation necessary.

But the strengthened liar's sentence persuaded me that there is at least an interesting formal concern.

Now I sit and wonder what it takes the to contain explosion, if anything rational could be proposed in empirical (rather than conceptual) cases.

To address your concern about knowledge and logic's relation to it: I think this exercise demonstrates that we can't contain the world with logic, but rather we invent the logic to fit the world. It works because we've seen this or that enough times and so we follow the habits which reward us and call it truth*.

What's interesting about this line of thinking is that it's not denying even a metaphysical truth. But rather is showing how knowledge is produced: Guess and check. There is no method that guarantees knowledge. You just have to work things out the best you can.

So it's not entirely a dry academic consideration, to me. I see lots of interesting inroads with these ideas to other things I'm interested in, and the creative nature of it all gets along with what I think knowledge generation takes: making up new things and seeing if they work.

EDIT: An afterthought -- in a way the pluralist is actually more anti-nihilist than the monist. The monist has to hold that contradictory statements cannot be logically comprehended which is, in a way, a baby nihilism: Here is the field of inquiry where no logical rules hold. The pluralist says "Well, so far, perhaps... but what if we...."

*EDIT2: That looks dangerously close to a pragmatic theory of truth. It's off topic but I'm not a pragmatist, in spite of these sayings which would easily cohere with pragmatist theories of truth.

Almost like I read philosophy to figure things out that I still wonder about ;)

And so it is up to monists to show what it is that all logical systems have in common. I don't see that it can be done. — Banno

It could be thought of as a regulative principle -- here we have multiple logics, but we would like them to cohere: the monist would then be more of a project than a position, the attempt to build a logic which contains all logics. (one could presumably derive the LNC from this meta-logic, for instance -- but it's just an idea)

Do you see why I feel that I am wasting my time? — Leontiskos

I believe that I do, and I'm happy that you continue to respond in spite of the frustration.

Gonna call it for tonight and rethink stuff, though obviously not in your favor :D

I'd appreciate you answering my question about whether or not paraconsistent logic would count as a plural logic insofar that we accept both paraconsistent logic and classical logic.

Perhaps that's a nice example of the methodological difference between pluralism and monism. I don't actually think this is quite right, but at the least it shows a difference in approach. — Banno

Interesting. I like this approach of defining the difference as a matter of method.

The liar is clear, in the way you have argued. Rejecting it as a "nonsense" is a failing of nerve, rather than an act of rationality. There are three ways of dealing with it that I think worth considering. Tarski would say that it is a mistake to assign truth values to sentences within the same language, but permissible between languages, so the problem with the liar is that it tries to say something about the falsity of a sentence within it's own language. Kripke would say that we can assign truth values within one language, but that we shouldn't assign them to every sentence, the liar being an example of a sentence to which we cannot assign a truth value. Revision theories would have us say "this sentence is true" is true on the first iteration, false and the second, true on the third... and so on. — Banno

I notice a distinct lack of dialetheism in your approach ;)

The way I understand Tarski's attempt to deal with it is the distinction between meta- and object- language. I think that's the neatest way to deal with it, but upon reading Priest I've reconsidered.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between Tarski and Kripke, though. By your sentences they look the same to me, so I'm missing something.

Revision theories sound like they can't make a decision. Not that I'd know anything about that ;D

Or if you like, why is it false, whatever "it" is supposed to be? How do we know that it is false? Is it because you said so? But you saying so does not make a thing false, so that's a dead end. Even Wittgenstein understood that a sentence cannot prove or show its own truth or falsity. — Leontiskos

Suppose that the liar's sentence is false. Then the liar's sentence is true because it says that it is false.

Suppose that the liar's sentence is true. Then the sentence is false because it says that it's false and we're saying it is true.

In either case you end up with the circuit of evaluation which yields both "...is true" and "...is false" regardless of its starting truth value.

Though I can see you're not having it.

Do you at least agree that paraconsistent logic is different enough to count as pluralism?

You haven't managed to address the argument. Let's set it out again:

The clause "...is false" presupposes an assertion or claim.
"This sentence" is not an assertion or claim.
Therefore, "This sentence is false," does not supply "...is false" with an assertion or claim.

Now here's what you have to do to address the argument. You have to argue against one of the premises or the inference. So pick one and have a go. — Leontiskos

I'll start with your first premise. "...is false" presupposes no such thing as an assertion or claim -- like I noted earlier "This duck is false" could mean "This duck is fake", right?

So it follows that the meaning of a clause depends upon the name and the predicate -- "...is false", outside of everyday, has no meaning.

Note too that, "This sentence is false," is different from, "This sentence is false is false," or more clearly, " 'This sentence is false' is false. " Be clear on what you are trying to say, if you really think you are saying something intelligible at all. Be clear about what you think is false.

I agree that "This sentence is false" differs from "This sentence is false is false" -- I think once we introduce substitution we're no longer in everyday reasoning, but it works at any level from what I can tell.

"This sentence is false" is all I need. It's a nefarious sentence. Or a purposefully chosen set that play with the notion of true and false and self-reference.

Also, even if we introduce subsitution the liar's works -- it's the extended liar's sentence. (the "strengthened" liar's sentence is what convinced me that it cannot be assigned some third value, as in many-valued logics)

Actually that's another example that I'm wondering about with respect to pluralism -- do logics with more than 2 values count as plural logics, or no?
***

Also I can just drop this point here. We're starting to getting into liar's paradox points and if it's something that doesn't really jive with you then there's no point in continuing here since the point isn't the liar's sentence but pluralism.

Nice.

I don't mean to speak for @Joshs, but I'd say that "living in the moment", which is possible, does not negate the triadic structure Josh mentions.

Maybe he would have wished he could resurrect correspondence, but he knew he hadn't. — frank

What makes you say that?

I kind of thought of Tarski's paper, that I still struggle with reading, was basically a correspondence theory of truth?

Either way, what I'm hoping to convey is that logical theories like Russell's are attempting to accommodate any metaphysics of truth -- else it would be begging the question on truth.

I prefer "If you can't tell the difference between the various garbages, or worthwhiles, then it's time to open your mind more" :D

Not all paraconsistent logics accept dialetheism, but dialethiests are pretty much obligated to accept paraconsistent logic. — Banno

Cool, got it. Makes sense. One doesn't have to accept true contradictions to abandon the principle of explosion -- it could be that contradictions still always lead to falsity, but not explosion, or something like that.

So be honest. When you say, "This sentence is true/false," do you think you are saying something meaningful? Would you actually use that phrase, speak it aloud, and expect to have said something meaningful? — Leontiskos

Yes

Here I am using it, no? Its use-case is philosophical, rather than pragmatic, but I don't think that makes it meaningless.

Also I've changed over to the plain language version of the paradox to accommodate fears of formalism -- it's an example that arises from natural language use. What's so hard to comprehend about it?

To use 's division, this example is in (1). A child can understand the sentence.

How one answers the paradox is the interesting philosophical part, and also demonstrates the virtue of the analytic approach. The idea here is that we ought not poison the well because the implications of changing a logic are philosophically wide-reaching, at least with respect to some traditions of philosophy.

So it's not that metaphysics or knowledge are entirely ignored, but the hope is to find some implicating hint from an exposition of the conceptual map. The conceptual map doesn't represent battlelines as much as possible distinctions one can take up.

A sentence says something if it presents a comprehensible assertion. It says something if its claim is intelligible. — Leontiskos

Intelligible to whom?

Now when you say, "X is false," I can think of X's that fit the bill. I might ask what you mean by X, and you might say, "2+2=5." That's fine. "...is false" applies to claims or assertions. If there is no claim or assertion then there is no place for "...is false." For example, "Duck is false," "2+3+4+5 is false," "This sentence is false."

I don't think it's so incomprehensible. I think it's very simple. "Duck is false" and "2+3+4+5 is false" don't work because "Duck" and "2+3+4+5" are not assertions at all, but nouns. Now if by "This is false" I indicated a duck perhaps I'd be using "...is false" in the place of "...is fake", but it wouldn't be the "...is false" which we use when talking about statements.

The pronoun in "This sentence is false" points to itself, which is a statement. And the statement utilizes a predicate normally reserved for statements, so there's no category error as you're implying. It's not nonsensical for this reason at least.

It may be nonsensical because it flies in the face of the principle of non-contradiction, or the principle of explosion. These are normal metrics for judging whether something is sensible or not -- the funny thing with this topic is that we can't rely upon those norms to decide the question since they are the things in question.

Do you agree that at least paraconsistent logic is significantly different enough from either Aristotelian or symbolic logic that one would count as a logical pluralist if they subscribed to the belief that both logics are valid or true in their own way or domains? That is the reason I brought up dialetheia and paraconsistent logic, after all: It seemed to be an obvious case of logical pluralism that is significant.

M'kay, cool.

I was looking for uses to get an idea of what you meant, and the one use-case I found looked like it fits with your idea of being a person -- not just the body, not just the mind, but the whole.

In order for a sentence to be true or false it must say something. That is what it means to be a sentence. "This sentence is false," does not say anything. It is not a sentence. It is no more coherent than, "This sentence is true," or, "This sentence is blue," or, "This sentence is that." — Leontiskos

If you think that answer is wrong then you'll have to tell us what the sentence means. — Leontiskos

What does it mean to "say something"?

I'll say more, though it's fair to ask what are the conditions you're after here -- what I have in mind is that English cannot refer to itself but must refer to objects. Is that so? Some sort of extensional theory of meaning?

Because I'd say that just from a plain language sense "This sentence is false" is clear to a point that it can't be clarified further. "This sentence" is a pronoun being used to refer to the entire phrase which the pronoun is a part of. "... is false" is the sort of predicate we apply to statements.

"...is false" is the predicate which yields the value "true" for sentences which are false in a truth-functional sense, which seems to me to be pretty clear that this is the sort of background assumptions which are part of Russell's paper. (though what I'm advancing is different from Russell's, I'm in favor of her conclusion for logical pluralism)

But neither of these things rely upon truth-conditions or states-of-affairs.

And paraconsistent logic certainly seems to me to be a worthy candidate for being significantly different from bi-valent logic since it rejects the principle of explosion, and accepts dialethia.

Ran a search and found only one paragraph with the phrase. Is this the one you mean to reference?

We have become accustomed, through the influence of the Cartesian
tradition, to disengage from the object: the reflective attitude simultaneously purifies the common notions of body and soul by defining
the body as the sum of its parts with no interior, and the soul as a being
wholly present to itself without distance. These definitions make matters perfectly clear both within and outside ourselves: we have the
transparency of an object with no secret recesses, the transparency of a
subject which is nothing but what it thinks it is. The object is an object
through and through, and consciousness a consciousness through and
through. There are two senses, and two only, of the word ‘exist’: one
exists as a thing or else one exists as a consciousness. The experience of
our own body, on the other hand, reveals to us an ambiguous mode of
existing. If I try to think of it as a cluster of third person processes—
‘sight’, ‘motility’, ‘sexuality’—I observe that these ‘functions’ cannot
be interrelated, and related to the external world, by causal connections, they are all obscurely drawn together and mutually implied in a
unique drama. Therefore the body is not an object. For the same reason, my awareness of it is not a thought, that is to say, I cannot take it to
pieces and reform it to make a clear idea. Its unity is always implicit and
vague. It is always something other than what it is, always sexuality and
at the same time freedom, rooted in nature at the very moment when it
is transformed by cultural influences, never hermetically sealed and
never left behind. Whether it is a question of another’s body or my
own, I have no means of knowing the human body other than that of
living it, which means taking up on my own account the drama which
is being played out in it, and losing myself in it. I am my body, at least
wholly to the extent that I possess experience, and yet at the same time
my body is as it were a ‘natural’ subject, a provisional sketch of my total
being. Thus experience of one’s own body runs counter to the reflective procedure which detaches subject and object from each other, and
which gives us only the thought about the body, or the body as an idea,
and not the experience of the body or the body in reality. Descartes was
well aware of this, since a famous letter of his to Elizabeth draws the
distinction between the body as it is conceived through use in living
and the body as it is conceived by the understanding.40 But in Descartes
this peculiar knowledge of our body, which we enjoy from the mere
fact that we are a body, remains subordinated to our knowledge of it
through the medium of ideas, because, behind man as he in fact is,
stands God as the rational author of our de facto situation. On the basis of
this transcendent guarantee, Descartes can bllandly accept our irrational
condition: it is not we who are required to bear the responsibility for
reason and, once we have recognized it at the basis of things, it remains
for us only to act and think in the world.41 But if our union with the
body is substantial, how is it possible for us to experience in ourselves a
pure soul from which to accede to an absolute Spirit? Before asking this
question, let us look closely at what is implied in the rediscovery of our
own body. It is not merely one object among the rest which has the
peculiarity of resisting reflection and remaining, so to speak, stuck to
the subject. Obscurity spreads to the perceived world in its entirety. — MMP Phenomenology of Perception, end of chapter 6

It seems like the whole paragraph gets along with your notion to me. But I just ran a quick search out of curiosity.

That said, I get the distinction, and I think it's a useful one to some extent. Nevertheless, when logicians want to discuss truth, and validity as "truth preserving," one has to understand what is meant by "truth." One can declare one's logic "pure" and free from metaphysics, but honestly it seems that all this accomplishes is making one's presuppositions opaque and immune to scrutiny (and, relevant to this topic, does so in a way that I think is often question begging re logical nihilism). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I prefer to think of it as putting it to the side as something that can be discussed separately -- which isn't to say our choice of a logic is metaphysically innocent or anything. When you're trying to put it all together into some kind of coherent picture usually you can see how there are some natural implications of an idea; some ideas seem to "get along" better together than others.

My task here is to point out that the nihilism isn't absurd on the basis of anti-realism/realism, that nihilism is different from pluralism, that pluralism is a worthy contender whether we are realists or anti-realists, and that logical monism isn't obviously true.

I've read you as saying that logical nihilism leads to a lack of knowing -- that we would be unable to track what is relevant with respect to knowledge if there were no logical rules. I think the case of Humean skepticism is a good one to point to for demonstrating that knowledge need not have anything to do with our habits of inference -- we build knowledge around causation, but it could very well be that we find out we were mistaken in that knowledge.

Now, just because we were mistaken that does not then mean that things weren't real. It just means that our knowledge doesn't necessarily track what's real. So if we wash our hands before treating a bleeding wound to remove the humors from our hands since it causes diseases we will know something which is false, act on it, and in the process eliminate microorganisms which cause diseases.

The whole causal mechanism is a myth, but we manage because we are the ancestors of those who were lucky enough to reproduce in this environment (and they didn't know much either, so I'd guess -- though I don't know)

In fact we could look at induction as a survival strategy which violates the basics of logic all the time since it's an invalid inference. :D

Or, at least, I put those sorts of things under the heading "informal logic" which is the study of how people actually make inferences which includes a lot more on the "content" side (since that's how you demonstrate why such and so is a fallacy). It just seems that we'd be able to accommodate informal logic, or this kind of "content based" logic regardless of our position with respect to monism, pluralism, and nihilism in logic.

Just a helpful point of clarification, "classical logic," is confusingly the logic developed by Frege and co. relatively recently. There is no good catch-all term for logic before the late 19th century. People call it "Aristotlean," but then this tends to miss everything between Aristotle and 1850 or so. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Cool.

I mean logic prior to Frege. The square isn't found in Prior Analytics, but I would consider the likes of Frege, Peirce, and Cantor as part of the new logic which encompasses Aristotle's studies on validity, if not his entire project.

And why do we perceive it as regular? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that's a question for metaphysics rather than logic -- and which explanation one chooses will complement this or that metaphysic. These are different questions because we can reconcile various kinds of anti/realism with various kinds of monism/pluralism/nihilism in logic. This isn't to take a side on realism or anti-realism, but to demonstrate that the question of realism isn't the same as the question between logical monism, pluralism, or nihilism.

The nihilist account seems to get along with anti-realism, but it's possible to reconcile a realist metaphysic with a nihilist logic, and an anti-realist metaphysic with a monist logic. If that's the case I conclude that they are different questions and logicians need not answer the metaphysical question in exploring monism, pluralism, and nihilism.

Even on a realist account, though, I'd say we frequently find patterns that are not real -- we find regularities because we like them so much that we find one's that are false as well as true. This is what we mean by delusions and hallucinations and such.


Which is really just to convert the question of ontology -- what is it that we know about? -- to epistemology -- how do you know the true from the false?

I'm also not sure what "being" is supposed to be if it isn't what is given to thought. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's a concept in metaphysics whose meaning cannot be articulated, but only approached. If I take a page from Sartre Being is transphenomenal. If I take a page from Heidegger, then the question of the meaning of being is itself an unarticulated assumption of all philosophy prior which relies upon the notion of presence.

Is non-being somehow not-known? If I am looking for someone in a bar because we said we'd meet and I do not see them then isn't this an account of absence-in-presence?

Either way I'd say that the question of being is not a question of validity -- another demonstration from logic.

If the moon is made of green cheese then Alfred is the president
The moon is made of green cheese
Therefore Alfred is the president

The actual truth-value of these sentences isn't in question when talking about logic. It's the form between the sentences under the assumption that if the premises are true that the conclusion follows. But since the moon is not made of green cheese the question of being -- what is -- differs from the question of validity, and logic is this study of validity.