humans are so illogical
i have been considering many forms of logic, while studying Philosophy, lately:
(besides Aristotle's "true/real" vs. "false/unreal," and similar standard philosophy textbook stuff on logic)
"John Von Neumann's three-valued logic [true, false, maybe],
Anatol Rapoport's four-valued logic [true, false, indeterminate, meaningless],
Alfred Korzybski's multi-valued logic [degrees of probability.]
and also Mahayana Buddhist paradoxical logic (q.v. Huayan) [it "is" A. it "is" not A, it "is" both A and not A, it "is" neither A nor not A] "
from an interview excerpt with Robert Anton Wilson by David Jay Brown: What is "maybe logic"?
i'm also rather fond of jain logic, myself...
"true, false, true or false, indeterminate, true or indeterminate, false or indeterminate, true or false or indeterminate"
- from Philosophical Development from Upanishadic Metaphysics to Scientific Realism
or this version, "Dialectic of Seven-fold Predication" from The Indian-Jaina Dialectic of Syadvad in Relation to Probability
(1) syndasti = maybe, it is.
(2) syatnasti = maybe, it is not.
(3) syadasti nasti ca = maybe, it is, it is not.
(4) syadavaktavyah = maybe, it is indeterminate.
(5) syadasti ca avaktavya sca = maybe, it is and also indeterminate.
(6) syatnasti ca avaktavyasca = maybe, it is not and also indeterminate.
(7) syadasti nasti ca avaktav-yasca = maybe, it is and it is not and also indeterminate.
also q.v.
Jain Philosophy [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
& more info about Jainism, here:
Essence of Jainism - Original Jain Literature and Jain Logic
` ` Sri Syadasti said, "All systems are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." ' '
- from How to Live Eleven Days in 24 Hours, by Robert Anton Wilson
but indeterminate does not necessarily equal meaningless... RAW seems to be loosely syncretizing, here... what does RAW mean by meaningless?
"When a proposition resists all efforts to recast it in a form consistent with what we now call E-Prime, many consider it "meaningless." Korzybski, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists, and (in his own way) Niels Bohr promoted this view. I happen to agree with that verdict (which condemns 99 percent of theology and 99.999999 percent of metaphysics to the category of Noise rather than Meaning)--but we must save that subject for another article. For now, it suffices to note that those who fervently believe such Aristotelian propositions as "A piece of bread, blessed by a priest, is a person (who died two thousand years ago)," "The flag is a living being," or "The fetus is a human being" do not, in general, appear to make sense by normal twentieth-century scientific standards."
- from Towards Understanding E-Prime, by Robert Anton Wilson
and while we're at it, let's look at fuzzy logic, shall we?
"Fuzzy Logic is a departure from classical two-valued sets and logic, that uses "soft" linguistic (e.g. large, hot, tall) system variables and a continuous range of truth values in the interval [0,1], rather than strict binary (True or False) decisions and assignments."
or, perhaps you would prefer fuzzy logic for "just Plain folks"
as more of a pragmatist, myself -- i remain skeptical until i see that our lives are improved by such talk.
but i suppose non-Aristotelian logic does generally promote a pluralistic worldview; so i'm all for it!
--
think you've got a handle on all this?
if you want to test your understanding, then here's your chance:
"A Sneaky Quiz with a Subversive Commentary"
(besides Aristotle's "true/real" vs. "false/unreal," and similar standard philosophy textbook stuff on logic)
"John Von Neumann's three-valued logic [true, false, maybe],
Anatol Rapoport's four-valued logic [true, false, indeterminate, meaningless],
Alfred Korzybski's multi-valued logic [degrees of probability.]
and also Mahayana Buddhist paradoxical logic (q.v. Huayan) [it "is" A. it "is" not A, it "is" both A and not A, it "is" neither A nor not A] "
from an interview excerpt with Robert Anton Wilson by David Jay Brown: What is "maybe logic"?
i'm also rather fond of jain logic, myself...
"true, false, true or false, indeterminate, true or indeterminate, false or indeterminate, true or false or indeterminate"
- from Philosophical Development from Upanishadic Metaphysics to Scientific Realism
or this version, "Dialectic of Seven-fold Predication" from The Indian-Jaina Dialectic of Syadvad in Relation to Probability
(1) syndasti = maybe, it is.
(2) syatnasti = maybe, it is not.
(3) syadasti nasti ca = maybe, it is, it is not.
(4) syadavaktavyah = maybe, it is indeterminate.
(5) syadasti ca avaktavya sca = maybe, it is and also indeterminate.
(6) syatnasti ca avaktavyasca = maybe, it is not and also indeterminate.
(7) syadasti nasti ca avaktav-yasca = maybe, it is and it is not and also indeterminate.
also q.v.
Jain Philosophy [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
& more info about Jainism, here:
Essence of Jainism - Original Jain Literature and Jain Logic
` ` Sri Syadasti said, "All systems are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." ' '
- from How to Live Eleven Days in 24 Hours, by Robert Anton Wilson
but indeterminate does not necessarily equal meaningless... RAW seems to be loosely syncretizing, here... what does RAW mean by meaningless?
"When a proposition resists all efforts to recast it in a form consistent with what we now call E-Prime, many consider it "meaningless." Korzybski, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists, and (in his own way) Niels Bohr promoted this view. I happen to agree with that verdict (which condemns 99 percent of theology and 99.999999 percent of metaphysics to the category of Noise rather than Meaning)--but we must save that subject for another article. For now, it suffices to note that those who fervently believe such Aristotelian propositions as "A piece of bread, blessed by a priest, is a person (who died two thousand years ago)," "The flag is a living being," or "The fetus is a human being" do not, in general, appear to make sense by normal twentieth-century scientific standards."
- from Towards Understanding E-Prime, by Robert Anton Wilson
and while we're at it, let's look at fuzzy logic, shall we?
"Fuzzy Logic is a departure from classical two-valued sets and logic, that uses "soft" linguistic (e.g. large, hot, tall) system variables and a continuous range of truth values in the interval [0,1], rather than strict binary (True or False) decisions and assignments."
or, perhaps you would prefer fuzzy logic for "just Plain folks"
as more of a pragmatist, myself -- i remain skeptical until i see that our lives are improved by such talk.
but i suppose non-Aristotelian logic does generally promote a pluralistic worldview; so i'm all for it!
--
think you've got a handle on all this?
if you want to test your understanding, then here's your chance:
"A Sneaky Quiz with a Subversive Commentary"