From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   Ed Cryer  writes:   
      
   > Richmond wrote:   
   >> Ed Cryer  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> Richmond wrote:   
   >>>> x  writes:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 5/6/25 12:32, Ed Cryer wrote:   
   >>>>>> Is it philosophy to debate whether Canada should become a state   
   >>>>>> of USA?  Is it philosophy to debate Israel's campaigns against   
   >>>>>> its neighbours?  Is it philosophy to debate whether global   
   >>>>>> warming is true or not?  I say no to all of those.  Ever since   
   >>>>>> René Descartes revived philosophical enquiry in the 17th century,   
   >>>>>> it's been about the limits of reason; what is reason, where does   
   >>>>>> it lead, why do we have it?  Some major philosophers since then.   
   >>>>>> John Locke - empiricism.  George Berkeley - idealism.  David   
   >>>>>> Hume.  Immanuel Kant.  Ludwig Wittgenstein.  Ed   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Hmm.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I guess Wittgenstein said something about the analysis of   
   >>>>> language?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I know he did not invent all of those symbols, and are 'word   
   >>>>> problems' valid math?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Is 'math' a type of language?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Did Wittgenstein destroy modern philosophical enquiry?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I am thinking maybe no.  Are there any out there who would argue   
   >>>>> maybe yes?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> We have now entered another dark age of philosophy ushered in by   
   >>>>> Wittgenstein?  What does the math say?  Can you calculate that   
   >>>>> with a slide rule?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Is language utterly divorced from reason?  Is it a type of reason?   
   >>>>> Is it the only type of reason?  >>>> Language can be used to   
   >>>>> express logic and reason. And it can express >>>> other things   
   >>>>> too. But many problems can arise from differences in the >>>>   
   >>>>> perceived meaning of words.  >>>> For example, all cats have four   
   >>>>> legs. Tom is a cat, therefore Tom >>>> has >>>> four legs. That's   
   >>>>> logical enough, but what is a cat?   
   >>>   
   >>> That's a major category mistake; utterly illogical.  Red sleeps   
   >>> furiously.   
   >>>   
   >>> All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Ergo Socrates is mortal.   
   >>> Syllogistic reasoning.  Major premise.  Minor premise.  Conclusion.   
   >>>   
   >>> False conclusion. Socrates is all men.   
   >>>   
   >>> Don't waste our time on such puerile dumbed-down postings. Aristotle   
   >>> knew better 2,400 years ago.   
   >>>   
   >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism   
   >>>   
   >>> Ed It's not a false conclusion, and it is logical.   
   >   
   > It is neither, bird-brain.   
   >   
      
   The conclusion that Tom has four legs is not false. It is logical given   
   the premises.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)