A quick and potentially dumb question:
How are epistemology and logic related?
Would it be logical to claim a truth or a theory without justification?
both have log
-Imp
Knowlege of something’s internal consistency would be validated by logic. I guess that’s one way.
There are no potentially dumb questions; just potentially dumb answers.
What is epistemology? - It’s the methodical study of episteme, “knowledge” (quite literally “understanding”).
It presupposes something (some “thing”, some object) in relation to which to stand.
What is logic? - Logos quite literally means “word”, that is, a representation.
Both epistemology and logic require representations.
Logic is not concerned with the actual world, but with a world of representations. In its most basic form it is language, with its simplistic way of dividing the sensory totality into “things” (living or lifeless), “actions”, “motion”, etc.
Man is really subject to a chaos of sensory impressions. He orders this chaos, however, in order to live: he bundles some impressions and gives the bundle a name. This name is the seal on the bundling: from now on he will refer to the bundle by this name as a master commands his slave: he has conquered it, it is “known” - primitive peoples think the name actually says something about the bundle; that it “is” in a way the bundle.
Psychologically, that is quite in order: the word is the “thing”, insofar as the idea of the “thing” is itself a word, a representation.
The word “idea” betrays that any idea of a “thing” is only an image, a representation.
If we can only know (“see”) images, one may say that, as far as we know, only images exist, not “things”. Only phenomena (appearances) exist, not “things” - unless we conceive of phenomena as themselves things, in which case the “thing-in-itself” is the phenomenon.
If the prime question of epistemology is: “What can we know?”, then we can answer it by saying: “As far as we know, all we know may be imaginary.” For we can only see images, not “things”.
Logic is concerned only with imaginary things.
There are no potentially dumb questions, just potentially dumb answers.
What is epistemology? - It’s the methodical study of episteme, “knowledge” (quite literally understanding).
It presupposes something (some “thing”, some object) in relation to which to stand.
What is logic? - Logos quite literally means “word”, that is, a representation.
Both epistemology and logic require representations.
Logic is not concerned with the actual world, but with a world of representations. In its most basic form it is language, with its simplistic way of dividing the sensory totality into “things” (living or lifeless), “actions”, “motion”, etc.
Man is really subject to a chaos of sensory impressions. He orders this chaos, however, in order to live: he bundles some impressions and gives the bundle a name. This name is the seal on the bundling: from now on he will refer to the bundle by this name as a master commands his slave: he has conquered it, it is “known” - primitive peoples think the name actually says something about the bundle; that it “is” in a way the bundle.
Psychologically, that is quite in order: the word is the “thing”, insofar as the idea of the “thing” is itself a word, a representation.
The word “idea” betrays that any idea of a “thing” is only an image, a representation.
If we can only know (“see”) images, one may say that, as far as we know, only images exist, not “things”. Only phenomena (appearances) exist, not “things” - unless we conceive of phenomena as themselves things, in which case the “thing-in-itself” is the phenomenon.
If the prime question of epistemology is: “What can we know?”, then we can answer it by saying: “As far as we know, all we know may be imaginary.” For we can only see images, not “things”.
Logic is concerned only with imaginary things.
There are no potentially dumb questions, just potentially dumb answers.
What is epistemology? - It’s the methodical study of episteme, “knowledge” (quite literally understanding).
It presupposes something (some “thing”, some object) in relation to which to stand.
What is logic? - Logos quite literally means “word”, that is, a representation.
Both epistemology and logic require representations.
Logic is not concerned with the actual world, but with a world of representations. In its most basic form it is language, with its simplistic way of dividing the sensory totality into “things” (living or lifeless), “actions”, “motion”, etc.
Man is really subject to a chaos of sensory impressions. He orders this chaos, however, in order to live: he bundles some impressions and gives the bundle a name. This name is the seal on the bundling: from now on he will refer to the bundle by this name as a master commands his slave: he has conquered it, it is “known” - primitive peoples think the name actually says something about the bundle; that it “is” in a way the bundle.
Psychologically, this is quite in order: the word is the “thing”, insofar as the idea of the “thing” is itself a word, a representation.
The word “idea” betrays that any idea of a “thing” is only an image, a representation.
If we can only know (“see”) images, one may say that, as far as we know, only images exist, not “things”. Only phenomena (appearances) exist, not “things” - unless we conceive of phenomena as themselves things, in which case the “thing-in-itself” is the phenomenon.
If the prime question of epistemology is: “What can we know?”, then we can answer it by saying: “As far as we know, all we know may be imaginary.” For we can only see images, not “things”.
Logic is concerned only with imaginary things.
So far, “TRUTH” has only been provided through deductive a posteriori reasoning. The reasoning which is purely logical. The only problem is, it tells us nothing about the real world. It only offers us a general picture of what the real world might look like the same way that inductive reasoning does. So you could say that logic is the only horizon which epistemology has secured so far. The moment you step out of logic, epistemology begins to break down.
not even… there is no “TRUTH”…
-Imp
Offer me an exception to 1+1=2, knowing the definitions of all the symbols, and then you convince me otherwise.
1+1=2 holds an assumption of identity which is necessary for functional mathematics. An outright stubborn nominalist would try and say that math is the only place that it works that way. He would call those symbols meaningless outside the context of math.
smears has the jist of it, but furthermore that is truth by definition which isn’t “TRUTH”
(not to mention that it isn’t deductive or a posterori…)
-Imp
“1+1=2” is syntactically consistent, but semantically meaningless. There is nothing to which “1” refers.
For a computer, for instance, “1” refers to an ideal - a pulse of precisely ~3 volt (that is, ~3.000… volt). But the computer is crude enough to accept a pulse with a voltage approximating ~3. It refers the “1” therefore to a pulse that it mistakes for precisely ~3 volt. Error is the precondition of life.
Exactly. It’s true within its context, but still gives no real hope of Truth.
I suppose I did make a mistake by putting truth in capitals. “1+1=2” has to be true, because to say that it’s untrue would be a false claim. Of course, that’s why truth and validity are considered separate. Why do math teachers teach math on a truth scale? They should be using terms “valid” and “invalid.” Besides the point.
I do still think the relevance to logic and epistemology is that logic, a posteriori knowledge, is known. Everything else is unknown. We have discovered truth, and inductive reasoning, and have yet to learn anything about Truth.
logic is a priori.
experience is a posteriori.
never shall the two meet.
we have not discovered truth, “Truth,” inductive reasoning or anything other what is empirically observed… attempting to fit these impressions into the molds of language and logic is what causes the problems…
-Imp
I confused terms. I give up. I still do believe we understand truths but no Truth. That we can claim knowledge in logic only, which is the relevance of logic to epistemology. It’s becoming too meaningless to argue and I’m already struggling. No more crack pipe before posting.