From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)