John, (01)
I suspect we are not that far apart. However ... (02)
> CP> It does seem to me that if there is relationship, then it is
> > something to do with Husserl and Russell's notion that logic
> > can be a tool to describe ontologies.
>
> Excuse me. That was Aristotle's position: logic is the
> _organon_ (tool) for doing philosophy, including ontology,
> the first philosophy. (03)
I think my (Russell/Husserl) point is different from your (Aristotle) point. (04)
JS> logic is the _organon_ (tool) for doing philosophy
What exactly is 'doing' here? Is it that when you do philosophy, you are
doing logic? If so, then Aristotle did not practice what he preached as
there is quite a lot of his work that is not plain syllogisms. Similarly
many, even most, modern philosophers are not 'doing' philosophy in this
sense. (05)
It may be helpful here if you define what sense of logic you are using here. (06)
I am using the pragmatic definition that it is what logicians do (or claim
to do). (07)
CP>logic can be a tool to describe ontologies.
However, in my view (and a lot of the logicians I talk to), one needs to
understand something to a reasonable extent before one formalises it in
logic. If you do not understand something, then it is difficult to see how
you can successfully formalise it. So there is quite a lot of prior 'doing'
of ontology before one starts logically formalising. That is not to say that
one's understanding cannot deepen when one makes the formalisation. (08)
Regards,
Chris (09)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 25 January 2009 16:48
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> standards
>
> Chris,
>
> CP> However, it seems to me that in the late 20th century this
> > tradition was abandoned. That logicians (like mathematicians)
> > wanted to develop systems with little or no ontological commitment.
>
> First of all, logic is a prerequisite for ontology, as Aristotle
> said. So any attempt to avoid ontological commitment in the logic
> is a very traditional Aristotelian approach.
>
> The application of logic to mathematics is also very traditional.
> Euclid was inspired by Aristotle to systematize the mathematics
> of his day, and much of his terminology was adopted from Aristotle.
> Since the syllogisms didn't support full FOL, Euclid couldn't use
> them to formalize the reasoning. But there is a direct line of
> influence from Aristotle to Euclid to Hilbert, Tarski, and Gödel.
> (Tarski, by the way, quoted Aristotle in the famous paper that
> introduced his model theory.)
>
> But as I have written in many email notes and publications,
> the most serious blunder was by Frege, Russell, and Carnap:
> the deprecation of natural language as a degenerate version
> of logic. That is the source of the "grave errors" (schwere
> Irrtümer) that Wittgenstein addressed in his later philosophy.
>
> The most brilliant work in ontology during the 20th century
> was written by Peirce, Whitehead, and the later Wittgenstein.
> As logicians, they were just as brilliant as Frege, Russell,
> and Carnap, but they rejected their blunders.
>
> CP> So, if I look through the philosophy -- ontology textbooks on
> > my bookcase, for example, Lowe's 'The Possibility of Metaphysics:
> > Substance, Identity and Time', I find only a brief mention of
> > logic, typically where it is distinguished from metaphysics.
>
> The 20th century is an aberration caused by the split between the
> analytic philosophers and the so-called continental philosophers.
> (And I blame that split on the schwere Irrtümer of Frege, Russell,
> and Carnap.) But note the work on ontology in Husserl's
> _Logical Investigations_, Carnap's _Logische Aufbau_, and
> Nelson Goodman's _Structure of Appearance._
>
> CP> So it seems to me that as a historical comment my original
> > point stands -- where 'tradition' is understood as current
> > mainstream, rather than historical mainstream.
>
> There is a direct continuity between what people are currently
> doing and the historical developments from Aristotle to Peirce,
> Husserl, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, and modern AI. See, for example,
> the following paper:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf
> Peirce's Contributions to the 21st Century
>
> If you don't believe me, please look at the very extensive
> analysis by the Danish philosopher Frederick Stjernfelt
> in his very large book, _Diagrammatology_. In that book,
> Stjernfelt notes the very strong affinities between Peirce
> and Husserl. Both of them were much closer to one another
> than either was to Frege or Russell.
>
> CP> It does seem to me that if there is relationship, then it is
> > something to do with Husserl and Russell's notion that logic
> > can be a tool to describe ontologies.
>
> Excuse me. That was Aristotle's position: logic is the
> _organon_ (tool) for doing philosophy, including ontology,
> the first philosophy.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|