Issues In The Meaning And Definition of Logic

Quote from Martin

We don't consider maps necessary to our being able day-to-day to navigate in reality because we have internalized them and use them intuitively without realizing it.

Similarly, we have internalized "syllogistic" logic such that we use it in our day-to-day thinking when fully awake without realizing it.

No

Although one might argue that this is a chicken or egg conundrum, I think it's not and I have to disagree with this statement. A map is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional environment. We navigate a 3D environment by noting markers and our subconscious forms connections between these. I recall conversations between an architect, a geologist and a botanist. The architect navigated by noticing buildings, the geologist by noticing rock formations, and the botanist by noticing plants. Each was oblivious to the markers of the others. None of these systems of markers have anything to do with internalizing a map as commonly defined; a map is constructed by visualizing the markers in space and transferring them to paper.

Similarly, I see syllogistic logic as an attempt to represent ways of thinking, not as the way in which we think. Some of the greatest technical and creative innovations have occurred after a person has put aside a problem and allowed it to "bubble" in the subconscious mind. To say that this person is subconsciously performing syllogistic logic is such a stretch as to be ridiculous, in my opinion.

Thinking that a map precedes navigation or that syllogistic logic precedes thinking is similar to thinking that mathematics preceded matter. All of these are tools to try to help us understand the world.

Having said all of that, I do agree that we can and do internalize maps and/or logic and/or mathematics. But these are just instances of using the tools provided, and people use them to greater or lesser degrees depending on the way their minds work.

1. I am interested to see if Martin has more to say about "maps" in reaction to the comment.

2. As to the first "no" I have never met a Californian without a good sense of humor. :-). (but I hear they do exist!)

Except for the "No", I agree with Godfrey's comment #61.

In my comment #43, I used "map" in a loose meaning in the sense of a model just because I was referring to a quote using the word "map" and did not notice that my statement becomes wrong when applying a proper definition of the word "map". A model could be anything, e.g. a set of markers.

Regarding syllogisms, I meant the internalization such that we do not need to write down a truth table every time we consciously apply logic. My personal observation at the end of #43 is an indication that we cannot subconsciously perform logic in a reliable way while we are not fully conscious. Logic is apparently performed in a part of the brain which actually turns off when we are not fully awake.

Thanks for the background in your post. We definitely both in the forum and in the podcast the effect of different upbringings. You will probably hear in the podcast Elayne say that she was brought up in a very scientific family with little religious influence. The amount of time someone has been faced with religious doctrines definitely influences how interested they are in discussing those subjects.

Two of your comments concern me though:

Quote from camotero

So, reason, has been a great tool for me at many times, thus I have a bit of trouble putting it in a secondary role

Quote from camotero

And thus, I circle back to reason, to touch on the risks of following pleasure withouth the check of reason.

I think you're probably not yet seeing what I think is the real issue, especially in the second comment. I think what people in your situation (as I understand it) would be better of saying is something like this:

Quote

"So "reason" has been a great tool for me at many times, and I have always been taught and thought that being reasonable was the best anyone can be. Thus I have a bit of trouble dealing with the idea that any part of what most people think of as "reason" can be a problem. I've always understood formal logic, or syllogistic logic, or dialectical logic (whatever you want to call it) to be a good thing, and thus it is surprising to me that Epicurus pointed out many dangers and damaging effects that go along with the misuse of those things.

Further, I have always considered "reason" to be the ultimate test of truth, and I find it very disconcerting to hear that Epicurus held that the "senses," as well as pleasure and pain and something called "anticipations" (which I don't understand) to be the test of truth, with reason in a secondary role only adding a little. It's hard even to begin to understand what he means, because doesn't everything have to be "reasonable" to make sense? If I understand now what Epicurus was saying, it appears he was saying that reason is a part of the opinion-making process, and since the opinion-making process is always subject to error, it's a bad idea to take an "opinion" as unchallengeable in any situation. It appears to me now that what Epicurus was saying is that at any moment the only data we have that is unchallengeable to us, because we experience it in the moment, come from the five senses, pleasure and pain, and those pesky anticipations. He seems to have been saying that while reasoning is an important part of the opinion-making and conclusion-reaching process, reaching the right result in reasoning is totally dependent on observations of reality that can be verified, and the only things given to us by nature that have direct contact with reality are the three canonical faculties.

After all, Epicurus also said "PD16. In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain."

So the more I study it seems that what Epicurus was concerned about was focusing our attention on the data we get from our natural faculties that we take as "givens," and that those serve as the "ruler" against which we compare our opinions to judge their correctness. We can say that various parts of the opinion-making involve reason, but we never look at "reason alone," and especially the kind of "reason alone" that *can* be used by certain philosophers and other people, as the ultimate thing that we compare our opinions against."

So especially on your second quote, you do use "reason" as a part of evaluating your decisions and deciding what to choose and what to avoid. But the ruler ("the tool of precision" according to DeWitt) is not the standard of truth. (As an exception to illustrate the rule, if you want to invent a new system, a particular object *can* be made to be a standard, if for example you set up a certain bar somewhere as a unit of measurement, like Wikipedia says: "In 1799, the metre was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889).)" Even in the case of using a particular bar as a standard, you then develop "rulers" against that standard and you use those rulers as your tool in everyday life.

But in general, any measuring device was originally developed against some other standard, against which which the measuring device was created. What we are talking about here is that Epicurus said the ultimate standard of conduct is pleasure and pain, because that's all Nature gave us as stop and go signals. All our tests of what will eventually happen to us are judged against that. "Reason" is best considered as a tool, as a sort of measuring device, just like all of the "virtues." There is no absolute standard of "reason" or "reasonableness" anywhere in a Bureau of Standards in Brussels or anywhere else. And the common danger involved in thinking about "reason" in itself, just like all of the "virtues," is that people start worshiping the virtues in themselves, and consider "virtue to be its own reward."

The same thing is going on with "reason." Reason is by no means its own reward, and it should not be worshiped as a goal or an end in itself, but that is exactly what many people and philosophers seem to do, whether they are up front about it or not.

Quote from Cassius

Reason is by no means its own reward, and it should not be worshiped as a goal or an end in itself,

But pleasure IS its own reward and is a goal in itself... which is what makes it the greatest good. Couldn't resist poking that bear again

LOL. And that's why I made those remarks about "Don will come in and explain all of this to us!" --- we can count on Don to go right to the heart of the issue!

So that I can add something more than this joke to this thread, let me poke another bear I've poked often in the past. When I was much younger I used to study the works of Ayn Rand, and from that experience I came away with it burned into me that "Here is someone (Rand) who really does in fact worship "reason."

I recall reading that she wanted the word "RATIONAL" on her headstone, even though I don't think she eventually did that.

And of course no one reading Rand can escape her worship of Aristotle as a virtual god of reason.

Then in subsequent years added to that I became familiar with the Stoics and observed that they were doing almost exactly the same thing as Rand in putting "reason" at the center of their analysis.

So this is where I see more of that "context" I've discussed recently with camotero. Some people are brought up steeped in religion, and so they are always interested in how Epicurus jibes with the religions viewpoint. I pretty much check that box personally. And then some get exposed to the Rand-like approach where they are taught to hold reason as essentially the standard of all things -- reason being the essence of what Rand would refer to as "man qua man." And I think if we set our minds to it we could come up with literal gobs of examples of philosophers all across the ages in that same boat, singing hymns of praise to "reason."

So in balancing how Epicurus could say both PD16 praising reason, while still in the rest of his philosophy putting reason in a firm secondary role to his "canon of truth," I think we need to take into account that it's very possible that Epicurus was as fed up with the worship of "reason" as I can get myself today when I let myself think about it too long.

Therefore we aren't talking about Epicurus opposing reason in the form of "common sense" or simple "consistency" or those ordinary senses. All of those I think he fully endorsed. We're talking about Epicurus pointing out the "limits of reason" specifically including those who try to use formal /syllogistic / symbolic logic to convince us to overturn the more day-to-day conclusions that we reach through the ordinary use of our ordinary faculties.

That's why I think Jefferson was exactly right in this quote below (once you take out the deistic tone that Jefferson was probably using to protect himself). I think Epicurus was essentially in tune with the last part I am highlighting from the letter Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.

It's hard for me to read this sentence: "This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense"

..... without thinking of Diogenes Laertius' " For all thoughts have their origin in sensations by means of coincidence and analogy and similarity and combination, reasoning too contributing something."

I realize this applies probably only to ethics, and we're talking more than that, but I do think it's instructive, so here's the full paragraph:

Quote

He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his Nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.