Philosophy of communication
Under "Philosophy", in The Phora, 1.14.'-7
Originally Posted by HELLSTAR_trek
If Ayer's followers respect axiomatic systems, then is there any reason that Ayer's followers would not attempt to construct some axiomatic system that expresses Ayer's premises and allows for the deduction of Ayer's conclusions?
What is accomplished by replacing the word "axiom" with the term "tacit definition"?
REPLY:
"Ayer's followers"? --HE was a 'follower' (as is anyone who reasons formally) of the great symbolic mathematical logicians of the early 20th century who clarified what deduction is; what necessary (analytic) truth is; how reality is held together in thought by language (the transcendental unity of apperception); what axiomatic syatems ARE: all necessary to clarify what is tacitly assumed by scientific theory of any kind. Add in the assumption of "one world, one truth", you reconstruct the tacit assumption of a unified field theory of science, which all the best thinkers have shared, I suppose, without making it explicit in these terms.
A. J. Ayer is applying the essential insights these our predecessors hammered out to commonsense analysis of ordinary discourse, which did not come into being to express truth and falsehood. Anyone who tries to think and communicate clearly about a topic or object, S, resulting in a judgment or sentence attributing some predicate P to S (thus asserting "S is P") with the expectation of it being taken as true or false is a "follower of Ayer"; and if they want to organize what they think they know into theories that stand in logical relation to the source of truth of other theories, they will revert, as he certainly would, to actual scientific explanations (for instance, opposing modern chemistry to alchemy, oxygen over phlogiston) and the stratification of tacit assumptions into: sense-data (correlated with expenditure of a magnitufe of neural excitation), Sign-use (hippocampal learned memory contribution) and verification (theory of probability, etc.). Can you think of anything else one might need? (say: consciousness).
I find it absurd to speak of those who take up truths others have elaborated as "followers." As if whoever uses alphabetic writing was a follower of Futhark, or the Phoenicians, and on the side of Reptilians in the The Orion Wars. Absurd. (or is it?) Of course they "follow" the truth. Any metatruth-value in calling them "followers" either follows tautologically (logically) from "comes after", or erroneously imputes discipleship to something besides truth itself. In other words is vacuous or false.
QED
in honor of Alfred Julius Ayer.
__________________
Originally Posted by HELLSTAR_trek
If Ayer's followers respect axiomatic systems, then is there any reason that Ayer's followers would not attempt to construct some axiomatic system that expresses Ayer's premises and allows for the deduction of Ayer's conclusions?
What is accomplished by replacing the word "axiom" with the term "tacit definition"?
REPLY:
"Ayer's followers"? --HE was a 'follower' (as is anyone who reasons formally) of the great symbolic mathematical logicians of the early 20th century who clarified what deduction is; what necessary (analytic) truth is; how reality is held together in thought by language (the transcendental unity of apperception); what axiomatic syatems ARE: all necessary to clarify what is tacitly assumed by scientific theory of any kind. Add in the assumption of "one world, one truth", you reconstruct the tacit assumption of a unified field theory of science, which all the best thinkers have shared, I suppose, without making it explicit in these terms.
A. J. Ayer is applying the essential insights these our predecessors hammered out to commonsense analysis of ordinary discourse, which did not come into being to express truth and falsehood. Anyone who tries to think and communicate clearly about a topic or object, S, resulting in a judgment or sentence attributing some predicate P to S (thus asserting "S is P") with the expectation of it being taken as true or false is a "follower of Ayer"; and if they want to organize what they think they know into theories that stand in logical relation to the source of truth of other theories, they will revert, as he certainly would, to actual scientific explanations (for instance, opposing modern chemistry to alchemy, oxygen over phlogiston) and the stratification of tacit assumptions into: sense-data (correlated with expenditure of a magnitufe of neural excitation), Sign-use (hippocampal learned memory contribution) and verification (theory of probability, etc.). Can you think of anything else one might need? (say: consciousness).
I find it absurd to speak of those who take up truths others have elaborated as "followers." As if whoever uses alphabetic writing was a follower of Futhark, or the Phoenicians, and on the side of Reptilians in the The Orion Wars. Absurd. (or is it?) Of course they "follow" the truth. Any metatruth-value in calling them "followers" either follows tautologically (logically) from "comes after", or erroneously imputes discipleship to something besides truth itself. In other words is vacuous or false.
QED
in honor of Alfred Julius Ayer.
__________________
posted by Sid Thomas | 3:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home