Libur8us Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 I have a hard time understanding the application of "Informal logic". It seems to me every argument can be parsed into formal logic. Its just the variable values get more complex because they're effected by more factors etc. Why can't I factor morality into valid (favorable) constants? Or I'm just not getting it? Sorry in advance, I'm late to the study of philosophy.
bugzysegal Posted October 19, 2015 Posted October 19, 2015 I would say you don't want that move, because by formalizing all arguments, you open up ethics to all the problems of set theory and the problems of first-order logic. By keeping arguments in natural language, you are in a way safeguarding them and in another sense preserving meaning. For instance, the logical operator ^ conjoins like the word "and" or "but." However If you substitute "But" for "^" then something can be lost. Take the following sentence for example: It is raining and I know it is raining. Nothing out of the ordinary right? What about the following: It is raining, but I know it is raining. The reason this sounds strange is that we use "but" not just as a conjunction, but usually to point out some countervailing distinction between the conjuncts. In short, language is more versatile than formal logic and formal logic is inadequate for the task of solving the deepest problems of philosophy.
dsayers Posted October 19, 2015 Posted October 19, 2015 Why can't I factor morality into valid (favorable) constants? A person engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder are contradicting themselves by accepting property rights with regards to themselves, but rejecting them for others. I'm not sure if that fits into what you're asking. I think you need to define your terms or provide some frame of reference.
bugzysegal Posted October 19, 2015 Posted October 19, 2015 A person engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder are contradicting themselves by accepting property rights with regards to themselves, but rejecting them for others. I'm not sure if that fits into what you're asking. I think you need to define your terms or provide some frame of reference. I could be way off here, but I think Libur8us is talking about something like propositional logic being the method of forwarding arguments, as opposed to natural langue (the kind I'm using now and the kind that Stefan typically uses). Propositional logic, "studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or sentences, as well as the logical relationships and properties that are derived from these methods of combining or altering statements." For example:α → β α β This reads if a then B. a, therefore B.
Recommended Posts