Message 04312 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04312 Message: 1/9 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] thinking about logics

Hi list,

it seems to me, that formal logics for some people are the ultima ratio 
when arguing. One basic assumption behind this conviction is the 
principle tertium non datur, or the principle of the excluded third, cf.

It says:

   x is either A or Not-A, a third does not exist

There are two main problems with this conviction.

First is the meaning of A. Say, A is a concept of something, then it is 
necessary to agree in this concept before starting with formal logics. 
It is useless to say "x is A", while another person understands "x is 
B", thus these two persons can endlessly argue about whether "x is 
either A or Not-B" or "x is either B or Not-A". This often happens in 
this mailinglist and cannot be solved by repeating or using strong 
words or heavy arguing penetration.

The only way to cope with that, is to talk about the meaning of what we 
are talking about. The meaning itself can not be clarified using 
true/false logics, but only by understanding what is said and meant.

The second problem can be even worse. This excluded-third-thinking is 
formal logics or understanding. This is fine, but understanding is 
non-dialectical thinking. It allows not for thinking "x is the 
relationship of A and Not-A". This is dialectical thinking, or reason. 
Examples: No one can reach a location by not leaving another location. 
Nothing can arise without arizing from something which goes.

In dialectics contradictions come together. Moreover, contradictions 
stop from being a sign of untruthfulness, but they become the _form_ of 
the truth. Untruth is a relationship being free from contradictions, 
where something positive and something negative are separated from each 
other. Truth can only be found, where both are the same. The determined 
[bestimmte] negation is the negation which has a positive result. 
Tertium datur: neither the first, nor the second, but only the third 
(also called sublation [aufhebung]).

In this sense formal logics of "either - or : decide!" are not useful 
any longer. However, this does not mean, that formal logics are 
false - this itself would contradict its own assumptions of dialectics. 
However, the relationship between formal logics and dialectics is not 
symmetrical. Dialectics can not be reached from formal logics, 
for them dialectics appear to be an irrational thing. Formal logics, 
however, can be grasped from dialectics, moreover, the criterion of 
rationality is, whether the notion of the opposite of something can be 


Start here:
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04312 Message: 1/9 L0 [In index]
Message 04312 [Homepage] [Navigation]