René Descartes said the following:
>>538554187
>>538554118You stil at it? Go to bed. Its the most logical and reasonable thing to do for you.P.S.Read a book on formal logic you are not fun if we cant argue. Pls for me. Learn formal logic. Thanks
1. Mathematics and GeometryCoordinates: The system defines a point by its signed distances from perpendicular axes (typically the horizontal x-axis and vertical y-axis) that intersect at a central point called the origin.-Cartesian Plane: A two-dimensional surface defined by this coordinate grid, divided into four quadrants.2. PhilosophyCartesian Doubt: A systematic process of being skeptical about the truth of one's beliefs, famously leading to Descartes's statement, "I think, therefore I am".-Cartesian Dualism: The philosophical view that the mind and body are two distinct, interacting substances_____________________________________The term Cartesian relates to the works, philosophy, and mathematical methods of the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes. It most commonly refers to the Cartesian coordinate system, a grid-based framework that uniquely identifies points in a space using ordered pairs of numbershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system
>>538554118Give her the Dick.
>>538554475came here to post this
>>538554118Jesus fucking Christ could you make the fucking text any fucking smaller you cheesy cunt
>>538554539Thumbsup from me on this. ;)
>>538554475/thread
>>538554444Stop reading modern slop that tells you logic is something found in silicon rather than millennia old wisdom for cultivating the intellect. Read 19th century books.
>>538554737I have read them long time ago, if you are against modern stuff why are you producing it? This sentences you are writing here are peak modern. As freah as they can be. Are they not?My point is. You have been begging people to study logic for months now. In those months you yourself failed to learn formal logic. The math way of reasoning. Why? Why dont we see you improve in logic? Do you read logic? Please. Next time. Basic formal logic formulas. And think logically not emotionally.Formal expression is helpful.New stuff all bad is not logical it emotional.
>>538554444>Read a book on formal logic you are not fun if we cant argue. Pls for me. Learn formal logic.What did Kek mean by this?
>>538554591
>>538555047I just wish he was for real about logic and not just spamming o>>538519531
>>538554953fuck off, college cuck>>>/wsg/6190205>>>/wsg/6190203
“A point is that which has no part” and “a line is a length without breadth.” >We might interpret this as saying that a line is 1-dimensional, and a point is 0-dimensional.You _For Einstein the layer 0 was Time Euclid does not have a layer 0
>>538555186I am over 40 my friend. Again. Emotional. Not adressing the arguments at all, just ad hominem lol. plase learn more about logic than 4chan pol logical fallacies main post. Its good for you. Imagine the advantge you can have back home in somalia if you actually do learn logic.
>Descartesfuck this retard
>>538555126Fuck off logic is completely innate so there is nothing to learn.Of course there are some people that don’t have the innate logic and those people cannot learn even if they spend years on your worthless formal logic booksPeople with innate logic instead of wasting time like that they logically learn something useful such as an art they are passionate about. They end up lawyers judges and scientists.
>>538555126>>>538519531 ooooof no wonder, this thread is hilarious, his logic circuits how shorted
>>538555398No Face is Miyazaki self portrait
>>538555355>posts Jacques "toss my kids into Enfants-Trouvés" Rousseau
Are you still here OP?
a lower dimension cannot fully perceive a higher dimension all at once; it can only perceive its cross-sections over time.
>>538555277Study logic, actual logic, the Trivium, not modern "logic" which has been divorced from thought and language and only exists to turn you into an efficient button-presser. The Prussian education system, which is the education system we have, has from its inception been designed to suppress the Trivium for 99.5% of people while teaching it to 0.5%. This system is divided into tiers. Only the top tier is taught the Trivium, the tools of thought. For the middle tier they developed a hollowed out "logic" which ensures you can work as a programmer or engineer without receiving a liberal education. That's where you're getting your books from.>"We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."-Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, in a speech to businessmen, and from an address to The New York City High School Teachers Association, Jan. 9th, 1909.https://www.zhibit.org/diemythographer/die-mythographer-die/occasional-letter-number-one-2006And grammar is not innate either, nor is it something we don't know how it works and something "experts" are just now discovering how it works, that's brainwashing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3U6MsdBalg
>>538554118>180 IQ gigabrain is being nice and is saying he's not about to outright dismiss 130 IQ poors just because they aren't as smart as himi don't think we're supposed to take this literally
Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice (1971)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4
>>538555795This is a false dichotomy.The fact that traditional logic is valuable does not imply that formal logic is worthless.Formal logic is simply the systematic study of valid inference. It did not "divorce itself from thought"; it made reasoning more precise by making assumptions and inference rules explicit.Aristotle formalized arguments.The Scholastics formalized arguments.Leibniz wanted a symbolic logic.Frege, Russell, and others extended that project.Modern logic is not the rejection of logic. It is a continuation of it.Your own argument relies on principles that modern logic formalizes:Identity:A ANon-contradiction:¬(P ∧ ¬P)Inference:PP Q∴ QWithout these, your argument cannot even be expressed rigorously.Likewise, learning grammar and learning logic do not imply that language or reasoning are entirely learned.There is no contradiction between:1. Humans possess innate capacities for language and reasoning.2. Humans benefit from studying grammar and logic.Both can be true simultaneously.The strongest engineers, mathematicians, philosophers, lawyers, and linguists generally study formal logic because it reduces ambiguity and exposes hidden assumptions. That is not "button pressing"; it is disciplined reasoning.You can argue that the Trivium is neglected in modern education.You cannot conclude from that that formal logic is fake, unnecessary, or merely a tool of social control. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
>>538555377You know jack shit about logic, uneducated swine, shut your whore mouth.https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watttable of contents: https://heritagebooks.org/content/Logicsample.pdfhttps://archive.org/details/logick_2507_librivoxhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8MyllahXgw&list=PLWWjNDMbkdSl8Go4uRLZfGQnnFe8gMSOo
https://archive.org/details/easylessonsonrea01whathttps://archive.org/details/elementarylesson01jevohttps://archive.org/details/artoflogicalthin00atki
>>538555934OOOOOOOOOLook what we have just discovered That's the section discussing institutions such as psychiatry How interesting is that?
>>538556046>>538556111Many advocates of the Trivium overlook that medieval scholars were obsessed with formalizing reasoning.Early Modern LogicGottfried Wilhelm LeibnizDe Arte CombinatoriaWritings on Characteristica UniversalisLeibniz explicitly dreamed of reducing arguments to symbolic calculation centuries before computers existed.Isaac WattsLogic, or the Right Use of ReasonJohn Stuart MillA System of LogicBirth of Modern Formal LogicGeorge BooleThe Laws of ThoughtAugustus De MorganFormal LogicCharles Sanders PeirceNumerous papers on symbolic logicThese men developed formal logic before modern computers even existed.Mathematical Logic RevolutionGottlob FregeBegriffsschriftThe Foundations of ArithmeticBertrand RussellIntroduction to Mathematical PhilosophyPrincipia Mathematica (with Whitehead)Alfred North WhiteheadPrincipia MathematicaGiuseppe PeanoFormulaire de Mathématiques20th Century GiantsDavid HilbertPrinciples of Mathematical LogicKurt GödelIncompleteness TheoremsAlfred TarskiIntroduction to LogicAlonzo ChurchLambda CalculusAlan TuringOn Computable NumbersWillard Van Orman QuineMethods of Logic
>>538556138"...one of the tasks that seems immediate and urgent to me, over and above anything else, is this: that we should indicate and show up, even where they are hidden, all the relationships of political power which actually control the social body and oppress or repress it.What I want to say is this: it is the custom, at least in European society, to consider that power is localised in the hands of the government and that it is exercised through a certain number of particular institutions, such as the administration, the police, the army, and the apparatus of the state…But I believe that political power also exercises itself through the mediation of a certain number of institutions which look as if they have nothing in common with the political power, and as if they are independent of it, while they are not. One knows this in relation to the family; and one knows that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class.Institutions of knowledge, of foresight and care, such as medicine, also help to support the political power. It's also obvious, even to the point of scandal, in certain cases related to psychiatry.It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them."
>>538556043work on your reading comprehension, retarded faggot
>>538556346I read it. That's why I responded to it.Your claims were:1. The Trivium is valuable.2. Modern formal logic has been divorced from thought and language.3. Modern formal logic exists to create efficient "button-pressers."4. Formal logic is a substitute for a liberal education.My response addressed points 2, 3, and 4 directly.Pointing out that formal logic is a continuation of a tradition running from Aristotle through Leibniz, Boole, Frege, Russell, Gödel, and Tarski is a direct response to the claim that it is some hollow modern invention.Pointing out that your own argument uses formal inference rules is a direct response to the claim that formal logic is divorced from thought.Pointing out that the value of the Trivium does not imply the worthlessness of formal logic is a direct response to your false dichotomy.So instead of saying "reading comprehension," identify one sentence where I misrepresented your position.Quote it.
>>538554118I prefer this quote from Descartes. It's about this very thread.>They are like the ivy, which never strives to rise higher than the trees that support it, and which often even returns downwards after it has reached their top; for it seems to me that they also return downwards, that is to say, become in a manner less learned than if they had abstained from study, who, not content with knowing all that is intelligibly explained in their author, desire in addition to find there the solution of many difficulties of which he says nothing, and to which perhaps he never thought.However, their mode of philosophizing is very convenient for those who possess only very mediocre minds; for the obscurity of the distinctions and principles which they use enables them to speak of all things as boldly as if they knew them, and to maintain all that they say about them against the most subtle and able, without any one being able to convince them of their error. In this they seem to me like a blind man who, in order to fight without disadvantage against one who sees, had made him come into the depths of some very dark cellar; and I may say that it is to the interest of these persons that I should abstain from publishing the principles of the philosophy which I use, for, being very simple and evident as they are, I should, by publishing them, do much the same as if I were to open some windows and let light into that cellar into which they have gone down to fight.
>>538556512This!>>538556346Descartes described people who become "less learned" through study because they stop reasoning for themselves and merely attach themselves to authorities "like ivy to a tree."You keep telling people to study logic, yet when presented with an argument, you do not analyze the premises or the inference. You simply declare that the other person lacks reading comprehension.That is not the behavior of someone practicing logic. It is the behavior Descartes criticized: relying on status and assertion instead of reasoning.
>>538556512By isolating the intellect as a faculty that observes, processes, and wills based on conceptual data, the stage was set for René Descartes. Descartes would later strip away the scholastic metaphysics entirely, leaving only the isolated, self-contained Cogito ("I think, therefore I am") a mind entirely cut off from the eternal ground of memoria, trapped in its own immediate, linear processing.
> Augustine argues that before we even actively think about a concept (like truth, beauty, or mathematical laws), those realities are already latently present in the vast caverns of memoria. We do not look outside ourselves to find God; we re-discover Him inherently structured within our own memory.-In Plato's theory of epistemology, anamnesis (/ˌænæmˈniːsJs/; Ancient Greek: ἀνάμνησις , meaning "memory") refers to the recollection of innate knowledge acquired before birth. The concept posits the claim that learning involves the act of rediscovering knowledge from within oneself.
Aquinas and the Shift Toward the "Proto-Cartesian"Centuries later, Thomas Aquinas re-structured Christian theology by blending it with Aristotelian empiricism. In doing so, he radically redefined the soul’s architecture, accidentally setting the stage for Descartes.The Aristotelian Re-structuringAquinas rejected the idea that the soul has innate access to divine truths buried in a cosmic memory. Instead, he maintained that "nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses." * Memory Downgraded: For Thomas, memory (memoria) belongs primarily to the sensitive part of the soul, not the highest intellectual part. It becomes an archive of sensory impressions and past experiences.The New Triad: Aquinas shifts the Imago Dei away from Augustine’s triad and refocuses it on the Intellect and Will acting upon the knowledge of God. The image of God is realized when the mind actually knows and loves God, rather than being an inherent, structural presence within a deep memory.The Loss of the Eternal PresenceBy turning memory into a repository for things that happen in time, Aquinas severed the Augustinian link between memory and eternity.From Being to Function: In the Thomistic view, the mind becomes an instrument that processes data from the outside world. The Imago Dei becomes a potential to be actualized by thinking correctly, rather than an omnipresent, deep-structure reality within the soul's silent depths.The Cartesian Bridge: This is precisely where the "Cartesian form" begins to crystalize. By isolating the intellect as a faculty that observes, processes, and wills based on conceptual data, the stage was set for René Descartes. Descartes would later strip away the scholastic metaphysics entirely, leaving only the isolated, self-contained Cogito ("I think, therefore I am") a mind entirely cut off from the eternal ground of memoria, trapped in its own immediate, linear processing.
>>538556483The whole West abolished Euclid in the 1950s because there's logic in it. This was in response to Sputnik and was done to make the masses unable to think, which was done to make society more efficient at competing with the Soviet Union.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_crisishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Acthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_MathThis had been planned for a long time. Already at the end of the 19th century they were working on suppressing Euclid. Lewis Carroll, the mathematician and author most famous for writing Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, wrote a book defending Euclid during this time, Euclid And His Modern Rivals.The East did not suppress Euclid.https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/534803733https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/535673782/#535684529
>>538556660You haven't said one fucking thing related to the topic, spamming derailing faggot, kys. Also, I'm not here to debate, I don't debate retards.
>>538557176You changed the subject (again...)The question was whether formal logic is divorced from thought and language.Your evidence is about education policy and curriculum changes.Even if every claim about those reforms were true, the conclusion would not follow:"Education reform had bad motives"≠"Formal logic is bad."Euclid is itself formal logic: axioms, definitions, proofs, and deductions.Modern logic did not abandon that tradition; it expanded it.Formally:A = "A curriculum change had political/social motives."B = "The subject removed or changed was intellectually worthless."A B does not follow.You still have not demonstrated the original claim:"Modern formal logic is divorced from thought and language."
>>538557303I will list it for you then1. Formal logic is not a modern invention; it continues a tradition from Aristotle, the Scholastics, Leibniz, Boole, Frege, Russell, Gödel, and others.2. Formal logic is not divorced from thought; it studies the structure of valid reasoning itself.3. Your claim creates a false dichotomy: valuing the Trivium does not require rejecting formal logic.4. Having an innate capacity for reason does not mean formal logic cannot be studied and improved.5. Criticizing education systems or curriculum changes does not prove formal logic is invalid or harmful.6. Saying "you misunderstood" without identifying a specific error is not a rebuttal.If any of these points are wrong, identify which one and explain why.
>>538557312>"Modern formal logic is divorced from thought and language."In the Augustinian framework, thought, language, and logic are inherently unified because they are anchored in memoria- the deep, luminous ground of consciousness. Language is not an arbitrary code; it is an attempt to express the uncreated, eternal truths latently present within the soul's silent depths. Logic, in this light, is not a set of external rules we invent, but the intrinsic order of reality reflecting the divine archetype.When Thomas Aquinas restructured the soul along Aristotelian lines, he downgraded memory to a mere repository for sensory impressions. In doing so, he severed the link between the human mind and the eternal presence. The mind became an instrument processing data from the outside world, shifting the focus to active, conceptual mechanics.Once the soul’s architecture was redefined this way, the path to René Descartes—and ultimately to modern formal logic- was cleared. Descartes isolated the Cogito as a self-contained, linear processing unit. Stripped of memoria, the mind became a machine operating on abstract data. Modern formal logic is the ultimate realization of this Cartesian isolation: it strips language down to bare, algebraic equations (P > Q), entirely divorced from the living, intuitive depths of human thought.
>>538557312Didn't read. The topic of the thread is the text in the OP. Fuck off, degenerate. I don't talk to people who post random irrelevant images for attention.
>>538557482Yeah, the problem with his argument is that it confuses abstraction with separation.Formal logic does not claim that human thought is nothing but symbols. It abstracts the structure of reasoning so that we can examine it more clearly.A map is not the territory, but a map is not "divorced" from the territory either.The same applies to logic. The fact that we can represent an argument as P Q does not mean we believe human reasoning is literally made of symbols. It means we have isolated a valid pattern of inference.Even Aristotle's syllogisms were abstractions. The Scholastics also formalized arguments. Modern logic continues that tradition; it did not invent the idea of separating structure from content.The real distinction is:Human reasoning = rich, linguistic, intuitive, contextual.Formal logic = a precise tool for analyzing part of that reasoning.A tool that simplifies something does not therefore become disconnected from the thing it studies.
>>538557525Being angry is illogical. Calm down. Take a break. We can continue our studies later.
>>538557525>text in the OP.Descartes himself makes the opposite point from your argument.He says that the natural capacity for reason is equally distributed, but that differences in judgment come from how people "conduct our thoughts" and whether they "rightly apply" their minds.That means two things can both be true:1. Humans have an innate capacity for reason.2. Humans need methods and training to apply that reason correctly.Formal logic is exactly such a method. It does not replace thought; it disciplines thought.Descartes' point is not that reason should be left in its natural state, but that the mind must be trained to avoid error.So the existence of formal rules of reasoning does not "divorce" logic from thought. It is the attempt to make the natural power of reason more reliable.
>>538557544The map/territory analogy is fair, but it misses a crucial mutation: modern formal logic didn't just simplify the map; it declared that the map doesn't need a territory to be valid.There is a world of difference between Scholastic abstraction and modern mathematical logic. When Aristotle or the Scholastics formalized arguments, their logic remained ontological- it was fundamentally anchored to the structure of reality and the living mind. For Plato and Augustine, reasoning was not the external manipulation of tokens; it was anamnesis (recollection). To think logically was to look downward into memoria- the deep, internal reservoir of the soul- to rediscover uncreated truths already structured within us. Language and logic were tools to awaken this internal presence.Modern formal logic explicitly rejects anamnesis. It treats the mind as a blank slate or a mechanical computer processing arbitrary symbols according to purely artificial rules. Because it completely severs syntax from semantics, a system can achieve flawless internal validity while being entirely vacant of truth or meaning.This isn't just a tool simplifying a rich reality. It is a paradigm shift that redefines human thought as a series of mechanical operations, divorcing logic from the actual ground of language and conscious presence.
>>538557682The distinction being made here is between formal validity and truth, but that distinction is not a defect of modern logic. It is one of its achievements.Modern logic does not claim that symbols have meaning by themselves. It separates two questions:1. Is an argument structurally valid?2. Are the premises actually true about reality?This distinction existed long before modern logic. Aristotle already separated the form of an argument from the truth of its premises.A valid syllogism can have false premises. That does not make logic meaningless; it shows why we must examine both form and content."Syntax without semantics" is not a rejection of meaning. It is the study of the conditions under which meaning-bearing statements preserve truth.A map does not need to contain the entire territory to be useful. Likewise, a formal system does not need to contain consciousness, memory, or metaphysics in order to accurately analyze reasoning.Formal logic is not a replacement for philosophy, language, or human experience. It is one instrument among them.
>>538556512Would it have killed this man to not speak exclusively in run-on sentences
>>538557676didn't read, fuck off and kys coombrain
>>538557799The funny part is you are using Descartes to argue against Descartes: he says the mind needs proper direction; you argue it needs no discipline.
>>538557761By stating that a formal system "does not need to contain consciousness, memory, or metaphysics," you are explicitly conceding the original proposition: modern formal logic is divorced from human thought and language. The disagreement now is simply whether that divorce was a catastrophic loss or a crowning There is a massive historical leap in equating modern mathematical logic with Aristotelian syllogisms. Aristotle’s Organon was deeply ontological. His terms and categories (substance, quantity, quality) were explicitly grounded in how the human mind naturally perceives and categorizes actual being through spoken language. Form and content were distinguishable, but never entirely severed; logic was still the architecture of reality as processed by a conscious mind.Modern formal logic (spearheaded by figures like Frege and Russell) did something radically different: it deliberately broke away from natural language and human psychology to construct a pure mathematical calculus. It doesn't analyze how humans actually think or communicate; it operates within an artificial syntax where "truth" is reduced to a binary toggle (1 or 0) in a truth table. If an instrument requires you to completely evacuate consciousness, memoria, and the organic semantic structure of human language just to function, then it is no longer an instrument for analyzing human reasoning. It has become an entirely separate, closed mechanical system. It doesn't map the territory of human thought; it has abandoned the territory altogether to build a digital simulation.
>>538557987crowning achievement*
>>538554118Before I read this, was this before or after the Catholic Church arrested Galileo and he pussied out on his Automata theory and started pretending to believe that the soul is in the pineal gland
>>538558120 Descartes "the seat of the soul" ie The Pineal GlandHe also discovered the arc of a rainbow was 42 degrees.Kabbalah happens to be 42 in Gematria as an interesting aside
>>538557987"Formal logic doesn't contain consciousness, therefore it abandoned thought" is like saying "a map doesn't contain the landscape, therefore it abandoned geography."The entire point of abstraction is to isolate structure without pretending the abstraction is the whole reality.You are attacking formal logic for doing exactly what every serious intellectual tool does.A microscope does not contain the entire organism it studies. It is still a tool for studying organisms.A thermometer does not contain heat, therefore it is not "divorced from temperature." A map does not contain mountains, therefore it is not "divorced from geography."Claim:¬Contains(X) Rejects(X)is invalid.Example:A map does not contain the territory.Therefore:A map rejects the territory.False.Likewise:Formal logic does not contain consciousness.Therefore:Formal logic rejects consciousness.False.Not containing ≠ rejecting.The argument commits a category error.Abstraction is not abandonment.
>>538557910>you argue it needs no disciplineI never fucking said that. You have misrepresented my words many times. Work on reading comprehension and moral character, dirty-minded fucking Dr Lexus-type. You are anglophone in spirit, not German or European. Fuck off.
>>538554118This is big. Thank Rene for this important update. I also this Aristotle is boring btw, you aren't the only one!
>>538558330The microscope and thermometer analogies completely miss the target. A microscope is designed to look deeper into the biological organism; a thermometer physically interacts with kinetic energy to measure temperature. They are intrinsically dependent on and tethered to the physical realities they study.Modern formal logic does not look deeper into human thought, nor does it interact with it. It purposefully replaces human language with a synthetic substitute. It doesn't act like a microscope; it acts like a digital simulation of an organism that claims to understand biology without ever needing a real cell.This is exactly why the later Wittgenstein abandoned this crystalline purity to head back to the "rough ground." As Wittgenstein realized, the danger of modern formal logic isn't that it simply "abstracts" reality like a map. The danger is that it operates as if the map is completely self-sustaining.When a mapmaker stops looking at the earth and declares that a map is perfectly valid even if the islands it prints do not exist in the ocean, it is no longer practicing geography. It is playing a closed game. If an instrument requires you to completely sever syntax from semantic meaning, it has stopped analyzing human language and thought. It has abandoned them.
>>538554187This meme is really funny, expressing how retarded and resistant to learn anything about the world, portrayed as a good thing. It is good to be a goy cattle slave. Truly only an American would post this.
>>538558556Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.PlatoThat man might be a genius athlete or engineer who simply wishes a lighthearted break
>>538557768Whenever there is something I don't understand when I read Heidegger (french translation), I reach for the english version.Rome produce zero (0) philosopher.Now that America has solved solving itself (AI) and that utility has been used up, what's left for America?
>>538558477The argument still makes the same mistake: confusing a tool's scope with a tool's subject.Formal logic does not claim to replace human thought or language. It studies one specific property of reasoning: whether conclusions follow from premises.A dictionary does not contain a language speaker's entire mind, but it is still about language. A grammar book does not contain consciousness, but it is still about language. A blueprint does not contain a building, but it is still about buildings.Likewise, formal logic does not need to contain consciousness or "memoria" in order to analyze logical structure.The claim that syntax and semantics are "severed" is also misleading. Modern logic separates them so they can be studied independently. It does not deny that they are connected in real human communication.Wittgenstein's later philosophy did not prove formal logic was useless; it showed that formal systems are tools with limits. A tool having limits does not make it invalid.The mistake is:"Formal logic is not the whole of human reasoning, therefore it is not a study of human reasoning."That conclusion does not follow. ¬Contains(all human thought) ≠ Rejects(human thought).
>>538558751The problem with your new analogies are that dictionaries, grammar books, and blueprints are all tightly tethered to the actual, living realities they represent. A grammar book describes how a language is actually spoken; a blueprint is a direct causal template for building a physical structure.Modern formal logic does not work this way. It does not describe or analyze how humans actually reason- that is the domain of psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics. Instead, it creates an entirely artificial, idealized calculus.This isn't just a harmless separation of "scope" to study a property independently. When Bertrand Russell pioneered this movement, his explicit goal was to override natural language because he believed natural grammar was inherently defective, sloppy, and full of logical illusions. His Theory of Descriptions wasn't written to understand how people think about things like unicorns; it was designed to strip the unicorn out of the sentence entirely and replace human speech with mathematical notation.By forcing language into a system where syntax is completely emptied of semantic weight, modern logic didn't just isolate a property of human thought- it evacuated the human element altogether.If a tool requires you to completely eliminate context, semantic meaning, and the actual psychological reality of human cognition just to operate, it is no longer an instrument of human thought. It is a synthetic surrogate. Formal logic is a brilliant, highly functional mathematical game, but by design, it has completely cut the cord to the rough ground of living language.
>>538556687>Cogito ergo ... sum fuk.This whole thread is making my head spin ... formal logic, wtf ...
>>538559086The image lol
>>538558556
>>538559086>formal logic, wtf ...its just code, like a programming language, cool tool. Im stealing the skelly btw
>>538559142Yeah, sorry for the pigeon chess move but I can only take that much sophistry at a time. :p
>>538559329Oh, oh! I get it now! I can do a bit of programming, probably. Could possibly even interpret a wiring diagram ... :)>if ... then ... wait why the fuck does that line loop right back on the if ...
III. The Deforestation of the Imagination: Russell and the Erasure of the Unicorn. By the early twentieth century, this isolated Cartesian machine was fully weaponized by Bertrand Russell and the early analytic tradition. If Aquinas turned the mind outward toward sensory data, Russell sought to purge the mind's linguistic expressions of any remaining metaphysical "clutter" that could not be verified by physical or mathematical precision.This manifested profoundly in Russell’s assault on "Meinong’s Jungle." The Austrian philosopher Alexius Meinong had argued that if a human being can meaningfully think of a unicorn, or state that "the unicorn does not exist," the unicorn must possess some form of reality- it must "subsist" in a logical realm of non-existent objects. Otherwise, language would be pointing at literal nothingness, rendering the thought meaningless.Russell revolted against this, declaring that such a jungle of imaginary, semi-real objects offended his "vivid sense of reality." To clear the brush, Russell invented his famous Theory of Descriptions (1905). Utilizing formal logic, he argued that natural grammar tricks the human mind into believing concepts like "unicorns" have semantic weight. Russell mathematically translated natural language into a calculus of variables: There is an object x, such that x has the property of being a one-horned horse. Because no x exists in the physical world, the statement evaluates to a binary 0 (false).Through this formal reduction, Russell did not analyze human thought or language; he actively sought to override and correct it. The imagination, the archetypal realities of memoria, and the creative scope of natural language were forcibly evacuated. If a concept could not be processed as a localized, empirical variable within a strict binary system, it was systematically erased from the map of legitimate reasoning.
>>538560072I will post the essay in a fresh thread not to clutter this window.Accompanied by a striking image encapsulating the transition within the theme of the essay.Since I have 300 seconds until I can post the essay.I shall show you the two images The first Young woman with a Unicorn
>>538554118puppet of the devil worshipping elitesits all just wordy nonsenseafter socrates, the whole of modern philosopy, is just nonsensical raigebait
>>538560747In the 17th century, the transformation went all the way to the frozen, mechanical limit. An anonymous painter completely erased the mythical creature and replaced it with the heavy, wooden, spiked torture wheel of St. Catherine of Alexandria.
>>538554463philosophy means love for wisdom which means thinking for yourselfagain descartes is an agent of darkness, especially europe after rome and christendumbfunny how dumb yall mf arelike mega stoop reatardsfrign cringe in hell for you niggasfor being such a waste of time
>>538554118what did the ugly looking jew say?
>>538560898I have argued against Cartesianisn the whole thread.I was illustrating what we were deconstructing
>>538560072Full Essay>>538561021
Now this is pod racing
>>538554118Because of jews niggers and brownies we can't have nice things in a nice world.
Not one fucking poster read the text in the OP and discussed it. kys fucking coombrains
>>538558635Thanks for this anon
>>538562121I did. I will do it again. The Descartes passage you quoted actually argues against your conclusion.Descartes' point is not that human reason should be left untouched in its natural state. His point is that everyone possesses reason, but people differ because they "conduct our thoughts along different ways" and fail to "rightly apply" their reason.The important sentence is:"For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it."That is exactly the justification for studying logic.Logic is not a replacement for reason. It is a method for applying reason correctly.Descartes is saying:1. Humans naturally possess the ability to reason.2. This ability can be misdirected.3. Proper methods are needed to avoid error.Therefore, studying logic does not deny innate reason; it is the practice of directing innate reason properly.Your interpretation would require Descartes to mean:"Everyone has reason, therefore nobody needs methods for using it."But the very passage says the opposite.
Now now. The other bots can read OPs botspeak just fine
>>538562354It's my pleasure Anon
>>538562423>Descartes' point is not that human reason should be left untouched in its natural state.Stopped reading there, I didn't fucking say that anywhere in this thread. Kill yourself, derailing fucking spambot. You're a fucking degenerate. Seriously, commit suicide today.
Reminder that OP is a pseud who got owned by an Israeli flag when talking about Euclid
>>538562670The Descartes passage is actually a strong argument against the claim that logic is not innate.Descartes says that the "power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error" is naturally present in all humans. That is an innate logical faculty.This does not mean humans are born knowing formal systems, symbolic notation, or rules of proof. Those are learned tools that refine and discipline the natural faculty of reason.The distinction is:Innate logic = the basic human capacity to recognize truth, error, consistency, and contradiction.Formal logic = the explicit systematization of those reasoning principles.Formal logic does not replace innate reason; it makes its operation clearer and less prone to error.Formally:Let:R = innate capacity to reasonF = formal logic is learnedS = formal logic improves the application of reasonDescartes supports:Rand logic education supports:F SThere is no contradiction:R ∧ F ∧ STherefore:"Formal logic is learned" does not imply "logic is not innate."The mistake is confusing knowledge of formal rules with the underlying capacity to reason.
>>538562918You forfeited your worthiness of my reading or replying to your posts long ago, punk.
>>538563217u dont read or reply by replying...
