A circle is a drawing or something imagined. it doesn't have a "back" since it is a representation of a two dimensional object. So it's not clear what you are proposing. — Janus
Well, the little evidence I could find says otherwise. Here's an Ngram of interest."Material logic," is not an esoteric term — Count Timothy von Icarus
And not deflationary theories of truth nor a denial of causation, neither of which have any relevance to the arguments offered here. And nothing about square circles, either.Logical nihilism and a deflationism vis-á-vis truth and a denial of causes certainly seem to go together as a package deal much of the time. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The issue here seems to lie in predication, and so it's more obvious that there has to be a metaphysical side to the investigation — Count Timothy von Icarus
However, I wouldn't take it as a badge of honor to be entirely ignorant of the basics of logic prior to the 20th century on account of this fact. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The idea that there is "nothing but formalism" is the problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Logically it can't exist by definition, but neither can a single point that's a wave and here we are. — Cheshire
It's been reconciled as a particle floating on a wave as well. But, that gets into 3d space. Anyway, seems like I lost the beat. I probably need to read a bit. Banno brought charts to a word fight.I think the problem there is that are trying to understand micro quantum phenomena using macro concepts. So is a quantum particle anything like a particle of sand, or a quantum wave anything like macro wave phenomena? It seems to be not a true paradox and in part at least a terminological issue. — Janus
:wink: Yep. Unfair advantage.Banno brought charts to a word fight. — Cheshire
The properties that define circles make shapes that appear as squares in taxicab space. But the geometry jettisons our concept of roundness, unfortunately. — fdrake
Anything goes" is a recipe for conservatism, since if anything goes then the way things are is as viable as the way they might be, and there is no sound reason for change. — Banno
how one approaches paradoxes depends on how one views logic in the first place. If we follow the peripatetic axiom that "nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses," my question is "where are the paradoxes in the senses or out in the world?" I have never experienced anything both be and not be without qualification, only stipulated sign systems that declare that "if something is true it is false," and stuff of that sort. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'd put it that the question which asks about the relationship between logic and being is no longer doing pure logic
If you do this, you just have the study of completely arbitrary systems, and there are infinitely many such systems and no way to vet which are worth investigating. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Material logic is a branch of logic that focuses on the content and meaning of propositions and arguments, rather than just their form or structure. Unlike formal logic, which deals with the correctness of the reasoning process based on the form of the argument (independent of the content), material logic is concerned with the truth and validity of the subject matter itself.
In material logic, the emphasis is on:
Substance of the terms: It examines whether the terms used in a proposition accurately reflect the reality or essence of the concepts being discussed.
Truth of propositions: It deals with whether the statements made in the arguments are true or false based on the subject matter.
Validity of reasoning: While formal logic assesses validity based on the form, material logic looks at whether the reasoning process is valid when considering the actual subject of the argument.
In essence, material logic is more concerned with the actual content and how it corresponds to reality, whereas formal logic deals with abstract structures and patterns of reasoning
For example, we can say "red" or "angry" of the number "4," in ways that are entirely correct vis-á-vis form. Yet obviously such talk is nonsensical because if one considers the content of: "the number four is angry and red," it is clear that the subject is not of the sort that it can possibly possess these predicates (obviously, this implies we are speaking of the number, not some drawing of 4 in a children's book, which might indeed be angry and red). — Count Timothy von Icarus
In essence, material logic is more concerned with the actual content and how it corresponds to reality, whereas formal logic deals with abstract structures and patterns of reasoning
I think this is about competent language use. Russell's paradox isn't about language use. It's not nonsensical.
Sure, that was just an example on the relevance of content to meaningful predication. But Russell's paradox is about stipulated sign systems, "languages," no? — Count Timothy von Icarus
What would be an example of a paradox in nature? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think this is about competent language use. Russell's paradox isn't about language use. It's not nonsensical.
Does the fact that it doesn't make sense to speak about something "moving greenly," "economic recessions being pink," or "plants being prime," only have to do with the rules of competent language use and not with what those things actually are? — Count Timothy von Icarus
As evidence of this I reference the difference between Kant's categories and the most general scientific theories -- I don't see any need for a group of categories to make sense of science. I don't think the structure of the mind or the minds relationship to being is the site of knowledge, but of comfort — Moliere
Good question.
My question, though, is do you think the possibilities of our universe are limited by what appears inconceivable to us?
Semiotics, through Aquinas, John Poinsot, C.S. Perice, and John Deeley is one particularly developed area that has a lot of overlap with this question (Sausser-inspired and post-modern semiotics largely considers the question unanswerable/meaningless and so ignores it though). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.