Misunderstood the question.
I didn’t mean “logic is the consistency between language and thought”.
I meant “logic is the consistency of language and the consistency of thought”.
I didn’t mean to imply that consistency is the ONLY thing “behind” the universe. I was asking only if it is there. Is the universe itself consistent on its most fundamental level?
There’s actually a nice little spot between psychologistic and anti-psychologistic explanations for the nature of math and logic. Kant wrestled with this more than anyone else. For the former, math and logic are not essential properties of the physical world, but rather they reflect how knowledge of the world is ascertained first through sense perception, and then through reason (the formation of concepts). In this take, math and logic are conventional languages shared by an animal with a particular kind of sensory apparatus that cannot know the world in any other way. This being the case, the real world could be something we know nothing about, but know must exist as a ground of being. Kant’s ‘thing in itself’.
The anti-psychologists on the other hand are saying that math and logic are languages that represent essential features about the world that would still exist in the event that no animal existed to know this world.
But this is an imaginary problem created in the background by cartesian dualists and kantian transcendentalists… one which is handled quite well by W’s ‘meaning is use’ theory. There is no need to solve the problem of the nature of the world because language would not be representational in the first place. Speech itself, including the languages and ‘rules’ of math and logic, are embedded in the behaviors and intentions of the language users. Strange philosophical questions like those asked by kant dissolve once the private knower ‘in his head’ is abolished.
Somewhere nietzsche wrote that we’d not be able to give a full account of what knowledge is without first examining the world through the eyes of a fly (or some such example like that). W (from a movie about W… not W actually) means the same when he asks ‘how can I know the world a lion inhabits?’ It’s that same old question; what is the world like and how is that likeness affected by whatever sensory apparatus perceives it.
It’s just that we cant know the world any other way, so if there’s something more there, it can’t be of any use. We are stuck with using our particular kind of math and logic as special languages for communicating in the world.
_
Nature seems to know of math, so math does seem to appear to be a part of nature… as is evident in fauna and flora, and perhaps it is we who are interpreting that naturally innate math how best we can, and all other beings and flora and fauna… in their own way.
There’s no gravity in empty space, but there are things to quantify… and probably calculate, and even humans can be (cold and) calculating, so… if nothing existed, there would be no math, but an active Universe brings a specific set of natural laws into existence… of which I purport that mathematics is one of them.
In that case, I amend to:
No, also not. Logic is something that thought can do, and words can express.
That is still what I meant. Even to name “its most fundamental level,” is not something which pertains to that which stands “behind” the universe.
In that case I remit my inquiry.
Just my opinions.
_
Bump! This is a good thread, to not keep going…
My opinion is that math is just “logic applied to quantities” (another James revelation). And that there is a difference between a logical argument, often called “logic”, and the actuality of events, often called “the logic” of what actually happened (“this led to that which led to this other that led to whatever…”).
Thinking of it that way, I think it can be said that reality HAS a logic to it. But that is different than saying that reality knows or uses logic as a person might.
It seems everything about philosophy is just the meanings of the words and how they get conflated.
Sometimes there can be genuine differences of perspective.
I would not make my priority to avoid them. That is possibly one weakness James had. He found it either aggravating or contemptful for anybody to disagree with his postulations.
Here for instance, we may disagree on the ultimate providence of logic, but so far we seem to agree just fine on its practical application.
Often, when there is ill will and dishonesty involved, the rhetoric of expertly applied formal logic is invaluable. And, at the very least, its expert use shows an actual study and understanding of the history of philosophy, of Aristotle, agree or disagree with the man.
One could almost call it inside baseball. At least in these here times, when much is at stake and philosophy is not a priority because nobody is able to comprehend its importance above the tin of the bickering.
One thing is for certain. Without freedom, philosophy cannot flourish.
In studying James’ posts, I am not seeing aggravation or contempt. Do you have an example, perhaps a topic where that would be revealed? I often see him being blunt or after personal attacks begin, he could get down right nasty. Is that what you are talking about (this is reminding me now of Mr Trump being hated for calling out the “Fake News” and others)?
What I have been trying to point out is that in that quote from your OP, you say two things that strike me as a little off center.
I haven’t seen that those who say there is maths behind things as merely expressing astonishment. When people pickup on what someone has revealed, those people express their astonishment because they didn’t know that math had anything to do with the subject at all and usually don’t even know what mathematics is. I think the people who claim that the math is there are saying something specific (and true). They are saying that there is an interdependent logical behavior that plays out and can be seen (snowflakes, DNA, that Fibonacci sequence thing…).
And to say that mathematics isn’t behind anything means that there is no interdependent logical behavior behind anything that we see - it is all random, arbitrary, or perhaps chosen. Is that what you really believe?
To be honest, that is just my memory of him, and I was a teenager then. Early 20’s. So who knows.
Let me try to put it this way. Mathematics was designed to find proportion in things, that is what it does. So, of course, no matter what you aim it at, you will find proportion. But before math was developed, it didn’t exist. The sun didn’t care if you called it circular or elliptical, and in fact the Sun is not a circle if you look close, it’s a fluctuating surface that can be generalized as a circle.
And to better explain my thesis there on the OP, if you already knew what is behind the world, and that it’s mathematical or at least logical, then what astonishment could there be at mathematics or logic describing anything useful of it? Just like, even though they can be extremely interesting and fascinating, the conclusions of mathematical operations themselves are not astonishing. You knew you were doing math, so that the result is mathematically correct cannot be astonishing.
Also, I do not agree that because something is not logical or mathematical, that it is then random, arbitrary or chosen. I believe, and this is me, that having an idea of what it may be or what it may be like is predisposing yourself when what you want is not to dictate, but to discover what is there.
Let’s take a Heraclitean aphorism:
“One must realize that war is common, and justice strife, and that all things come to be through strife”
What is logical or mathematical or random or arbitrary or chosen about that? Maybe I should ask first if you agree with it, but even if you don’t, does it strike you as being any of those things?
Is that an example of what you think people are talking about when they say that there is a logic behind everything?
As far as the quote, I see it as hyperbolic. It is largely true, but not entirely or necessarily. It is something I would expect Tucker Carlson to sarcastically say just before showing a clip of the riots in US Portland, OR.
What I see as logical about it (when it is true) is that it expresses a consistent behavior. That is what “the logic” is - consistent behavior. And then because math is merely the logic applied to quantities, there is a degree of math being expressed. Perhaps he could have said,
[] More commonality (c) = more warfare (w).
[] More justice (j) = more strife (s).
[] Due to the property of equality then
[] More strife (s) = more justice (j).
[] Given the premise that all things (t) come through strife (s) (which I would disagree with),
[] More strife (s) = more things (t).
So more mathematically -
2 * c = 2 * w
2 * w = 2 * c
2 * s = 2 * j
2 * s = 2 * t
It seems that he is promoting the notion that war and strife are good things that bring commonality, justice, and more stuff - get used to it, fight harder and create war to get more stuff (sounds a bit Jewish).
Is that how Mary gave birth (“all things”) to Jesus (“more stuff”)?
I wouldn’t be able to agree with his math.
Well I am a bit Jewish, and if you don’t like it you can go fuck yourself.
Touchy.
Actually math may be a bit mathemagical, created from primally instinctive imagery. Existence (of any conceivable image of an object; which can of not combine into an objective description) and said nonexistence, is the first foundation of primary dualism.
That extends all the way into analog-digital process, as has been shown in retrospect.
So what is the 0 in between 1 and 2?
the 3 that could only be an a-priori aspect, pushed outside of the set .
As per:
'Let’s take a Heraclitean aphorism:
“One must realize that war is common, and justice strife, and that all things come to be through strife”
What is logical or mathematical or random or arbitrary or chosen about that? Maybe I should ask first if you agree with it, but even if you don’t, does it strike you as being any of those things?"
Yes, and trigger happy too.
I suggest you keep your feelings about Judaism theoretical.
I would suggest you do the same. But it’s your thread.
No my darling. We fucked you up once and we will do it again. Ask Iran how that shit is going for them. Any time, punk.
Any second now, iambiguous is gonna come in here and wish you luck.
How far is this:" - give me liberty or give me death. "
from this -" It is time to insist on the truth, and to be rude about it if needs be. Politeness has its place, but I will take rude truth over well-oiled falsehood and tyranny any time."