In fact, it is a parallel development. What child do you know of who studies logic arduously until he has mastered all its intricacies before moving onto any other field of thought? Though I understand what you mean–though all fields of thought develop in the brain more or less simultaneously, there comes of a point when we have exercised logical thinking enough to recognize that in all other fields, we’ve been making mistakes and, to an extent, must start over.
Again, this depends on in what sense we mean “first”–if by “first” we mean what ought to take priority, then moral philosophy, by definition I’m willing to say, ought to come first. However, in terms of what depends on what, or what is a prerequisite to what, I’d say logic comes first, for without logic, one can’t derive anything of worth from any other field. This needn’t be construed as a conflict of priorities–it just means that if we are to arrive at the best, or the most reliable, moral conclusions on matters of life and things of importance, we must hone our skills at logic and rationality first. Therefore, exercising our skills at logic and rationality serves our pursuits in moral philosophy in the long run. Taken to its logical conclusion, one can say that we have a moral obligation to hone our logical and rational thinking skills in order to think through all other fields of thought with the most care and in the most productive way.
“Wrong”, not “false”. Logic can only establish whether an argument is valid, not whether it is sound. That is to say, it can only determine that, if an argument’s premisses are true, the conclusion must also be true; it cannot establish whether the premisses are true.
And even this holds only insofar as reality is logical–i.e., insofar as it corresponds to human reason.
You’re confusing two things here (perhaps not in your mind, but certainly in your words). A bacterium need not behave according to logic; it may just seem to behave that way, because we cannot think otherwise than “according to logic”–i.e., to human logic.
This is the profoundest insight with regard to logic. The rest is–no more than logical. To be sure, this insight requires the good use of logic. It is logical thought apprehending its own limits.
“We cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language [note: not necessarily of words]; we barely reach the doubt that sees this limitation as a limitation.
Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 522, Kaufmann translation.)
“We are unable to affirm and to deny one and the same thing: this is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any ‘necessity’ but only of an inability.
[…] Either [the law of contradiction] asserts something about actuality, about being, as if one already knew this from another source; that is, as if opposite attributes could not be ascribed to it. Or the proposition means: opposite attributes should not be ascribed to it. In that case, logic would be an imperative, not to know the true, but to posit and arrange a world that shall be called true by us.” (op.cit., section 516.)
“The earthly kingdom of desires out of which logic grew: the herd instinct in the background. The assumption of similar [“identical”] cases presupposes ‘similar souls.’ For the purpose of mutual agreement and dominion.” (op.cit., section 509.)
Thus ethics (herd morality) comes before logic. See http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187672.
You are wrong.
Logic can more than you think.
I am not confusing anything.
And you are the only one who knows that a bacterium behaves according to its “bacterium logic”?
We are talking about logic and ethics here!
A bacterium logic is logic too - by definition.
Original (German) text:
„Wir hören auf zu denken, wenn wir es nicht in dem sprachlichen Zwange tun wollen, wir langen gerade noch bei dem Zweifel an, hier eine Grenze als Grenze zu sehn. Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht, 522, S. 358.
Okay.
No. In order to have ethics logic is needed. The “herd morality” and “ethics” are concepts, created by language, by human language. Concepts must be defined, must be logical. So logic comes before ethics. Ethics depends on logic. There is no “herd morality” without logic, regardless how romantic (beautiful) the counter “arguments” are.
Am not.
Can not. Or maybe can too, but as you don’t elaborate, denying your statement suffices.
Do you even know what the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument is? A sound argument is necessarily valid, but a valid argument is not necessarily sound.
Can you give an example of logic establishing the truth or falsehood of a premiss?
Are too.
I never mentioned (a) bacterium logic. An a bacterium logic, if there is such a thing, is a logic by definition. Is is not logic simply, which then doesn’t exist.
Herd morality preceded the concept “herd morality”; it preceded human language as well.
“M. Rousseau, he [Maistre] says, tells us that he wants to know about the origins of language. Well, of course M. Condillac, who can answer all questions, can answer this question too. How was language constructed? Why, of course, by the division of labour. A lot of rationalist persons, seeking their own personal advantage, cosily gathered together and proceeded to invent language, says Maistre. The first generation of men, presumably, said BA and the next generation of men said BE. The Assyrians invented the nominative, and the Medes invented the genitive. This is how grammar was made.
This kind of bitter irony is very appropriate. Maistre was one of the first to perceive that the whole eighteenth-century notion that human institutions are constructed by rational men for limited and intelligible purposes is totally untrue to human nature. Herder had had some such ideas already, and of course the German romantics had them too. Maistre employed a particularly biting and mordant irony for the purpose of dismantling the rickety structures of eighteenth-century theories about the origins of society, especially their peculiarly unhistorical approach.” (Isaiah Berlin, Freedom and its Betrayal, “Maistre”.)
The word “Logic” only applies to language and its reasoning or argumentation. It does not apply to people, animals, bacterium nor reality itself. Reasoning can be logical. People and anything alive can be rational. The universe itself or reality has nothing to do with logic nor rationality. The universe can neither be illogical nor logical, rational nor irrational. Only a living creature’s reasoning and use of language can be logical. And only a living creature’s behavior can be rational.
Science can only tell you if you were wrong. It cannot tell you if you are right, nor what you know. In a sense, Science can only tell you that you don’t know something.
I think it’s good that you insist on precision in using these terms, but when is reasoning logical? When it happens in accordance with axioms that cannot be falsified by reason? “The axioms of logic” may only be the laws of human thought (and not even necessarily of all human beings–unless we define “human” by those laws).
Reasoning is logical when it is consistent and coherent. That is all that is required.
You were correct in saying that logic tells of validity, not necessarily soundness. But there are times when logic can establish soundness. Definitional Logic entails using, as the axioms, only declared definitions. Declared definitions cannot be false. Any proper logic based simply upon true definitions, is necessarily true.
Example:
Declared ontological definition: "To exist" is to have affect.
Within the ontology (the chosen language of thought), such a declaration cannot be disputed. It is a definition of a concept. It is true to the ontology by default. The declaration is saying that if there is anything that has no affect, we are going to call that item “nonexistent”. You might personally want to call such items by some other category. Anyone is free to choose their own ontology. Of course the ontology itself is only “true” when it matches reality. But if you say, “no, existence is … something else…”, you have erred. People can understand reality in differing ways, possibly each as true as the other. Just don’t go mixing ontologies. If you declare that “existence” means something incompatibly different, you must limit your use of the word to your different ontology.
Given the exampled ontological definition, it is logical to continue by saying, “if there is an affect happening, there is an existence present.” That conclusion is necessarily true. Science could never dispute the conclusion, and in fact, is dependent upon its truth (one cannot empirically demonstrate the existence of something that has no affect).
A great deal more can be logically derived from that indisputable beginning. As long as the logic is valid, every conclusion concerning existence will be necessarily true. The scientific method can only let you know if you make a mistake. Science could never verify that you are right, only that your logic was invalid, if and when it was invalid (a contradiction in your statements).
As it turned out, from that beginning, one can derive indisputable facts concerning every aspect of physics, even beyond what popular science claims to know.
mmmmmyeah. I didn’t say that Russell was the first to put logic first, but that he put logic first. Either way, no one read Frege until Russell told them to.
Reasoning doesn’t have to be “logical” because “reason” is a more general term.
BTW, “first” is left ambiguous because A) the OP is mostly for fun and B) cannot be answered definitively in either sense.
I think epistemology is, for instance, an archaic art, full of magic and religion. Others think it’s fundamental to philosophy. Mostly, no one thinks about any of the major fields of philosophy as being expendable. IIRC, that’s what i was getting at. FWIW.
This already requires more basic axioms, such as the law of non-contradiction. Otherwise, any negation of your definition may be equally “definitional” (axiomatic).
All ontologies may also be false. Then a statement that is false in any specific ontology may reflect reality more truly than a “true statement”.
(But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.)
That’s nifty. But what about religion? Revelation? That could still reflect reality better than any science or reason.
No, that is a rule of the logic. We are not talking about the rules of logic. We are talking about whether a proof concerning reality can be derived strictly from logic. Of course logic has its rules. Logic itself is not an axiom of logic, else it could be anything. Consistency of language (aka “logic”) includes non-contradiction (aka non-inconsistency) by default.
Currently all popular ontologies are.
False, by definition. Since being true means conforming to reality, and its converse is being “false”, a true statement cannot be false. Don’t confuse declared definitions (descriptions of concepts to be used) with “statements” of conclusion.
As I said, science can not tell you of truth, only that you weren’t (logically) proven wrong (via demonstrated contradiction).
A religion is merely another ontology and applied philosophy. As long as it is internally consistent, comprehensive, and relevant it is true. Of course it might help if they bothered to define significant words such as “God”, “spirit”, “soul”, and so on.
That’s not all I quoted from you, James. You said:
We were, or at least I was, talking about the rules of logic. Logic, by the rules of logic alone, cannot establish soundness. You’d have to give (arbitrary) definitions like your example to do so. But even then it’s not necessarily soundness in the sense that the premisses are true in the sense of matching reality, so it’s not necessarily soundness, period.
I’m not. And I said “false in any specific ontology”. It doesn’t matter if what I said is “false by definition”. Those are just your (arbitrary) definitions, used to specify some ontology or other. And you said:
The latter must–logically–have meant “necessarily true in the exampled ontology”. After all, you’d also said:
This is not necessarily the case, for the exampled ontology or any other. It may only be “true” because of your exampled ontological definition, and it’s certainly only necessarily “true” because of that.
In the sense of being internally consistent, comprehensive and relevant, yes; not necessarily in the sense of matching reality… “Revelation” in the context of religion means a revelation of reality, though.
Frege was already famous before Bertrand Russel was born. Back then, everyone of those Europeans who were interested in mathematics, logic, philosophy read Frege; even certain Americans (especially those who had studied in Germany) read Frege at that time.
@ Sauwelios.
We already had the discussion about valid and sound arguments. We do not need to repeat it. James and I also discussed that subject.
And I doubt that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic. We (the humans) are the interpreters - in any case, thus also in the case that you mentioned (that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic). But you have not given any proof or evidence for your statement.
We (the humans) can only do what we can - not more.
Basically, we are talking about language, especially about words and very especially about lexemes, log(ic)emes. This may also be called "interpretation“. Even non-linguistic experiences or non-linguistic observations - summed up as non-linguistic empirism - have to be interpreted.
Nietzsche said: „Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ (Translated into English: "Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.“) Wir können dieses Interpretieren nicht abwerfen! We cannot throw off this interpretation! We are the interpreters - in any case (see above).
When it comes to the "first-field-of-philosophy“-issue, I am arguing more historically or, more generally said, in a developmental way.
A young child can already argue logically before knowing anything about ethics or morality. This must have been the same during the early human evolution.
And during that early human evolution, there were no human "herds“ but merely human small groups, at least smaller than herds are per definitionem. Human herds occured a bit later.
That is just a statement. There are no proofs or evidence for it.
So I repeat and will always repeat my statement: Language and logic preceded the concept "herd morality“.
Exactly. That is what I am saying too. It is our - the human - language that also preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“ and not the other way around, as Sauwelios is suggesting. The concept "herd morality“ is based on an interpretation, on language, on thinking, on logic. Wether there was a "herd morality“ before it was invented logically by using language logically (philosophically) or not is a matter of the interpretation and changes during the time; but I have good reasons for saying that language preceded e.g. the logical concept "herd morality“, and I have given evidence for that. Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.
Great example.
I consider that language, if not spoken, then language of mind (thinking), had to come before that entire list. Language void of consistency in use, isn’t language. And since logic is merely the consistency of language, I would have to put logic as “First” on that list.
Studying anything on that list, including logic itself, requires logic to already be engaged, although perhaps poorly so.
Hi, James. It goes without saying, or should, that philosophy is impossible without language, and difficult with a poor grasp of language. Poor language skills haven’t stopped many philosophers, however, from trying.
Makes sense, greeting card?